Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:23337 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No. 22 of 2025. Reserved on 09.07.2025 Pronounced on:18.07.2025 Balwant Singh .....Appellant. Versus Hakam Singh and others …..Respondents. Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellant : Ms. Priya Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Shekhar Badola, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 2 and 3. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the judgment dated 11.12.2024, rendered by the learned Single Judge passed in CWP No. 15131 of 2024, titled Balwant Singh vs. Hakam Singh and others, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant herein has been dismissed and the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division Mandi dated 10.01.2017 2 (Annexure P-3) and by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) dated 26.07.2023 (Annexure P-4) have been upheld. 2. At the very outset, it is to be noticed that the present unsavory litigation is between two real brothers. 3. It appears that respondent No.1-Hakam Singh, who is real brother of petitioner-appellant herein, moved an application under Section 123 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Revenue Act’) for partition of land comprised in Khasra No. 544, measuring 13 Kanal 4 Marla Khata No. 146, Khatauni No. 150, Mohal Naghu, Mauja Jalari. Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, in which the petitioner- appellant herein was a respondent, being co-sharer. The manner and mode of partition which was devised on 23.08.2008 was confirmed on 16.11.2009 and thereafter partition order was passed on 04.02.2012. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid partition, petitioner- appellant herein appealed against the order of partition before Settlement Collector, who remanded the case on 29.08.2012 to Naib Tehsildar and then to Kanungo, who summoned both the parties at the spot, but petitioner- appellant herein objected to the same, on the pretext that 3 till the time, the Civil Suit filed by him is not decided, no partition can be done. Parties were called by the Kanungo on different dates, but the petitioner-appellant neither came present nor presented any document pertaining to Civil Suit filed by him. On 04.12.2013, parties were called but petitioner-appellant herein did not appear and was proceeded against ex parte and while absenting from proceedings, he preferred an application for setting aside ex parte order, which was dismissed. 5. While deciding the case after remand, Assistant Collector First Grade, Settlement, Hamirpur, upheld the partition order dated 04.02.2012, vide order dated 7.8.2014 (Annexure P-1) appended with the writ petition. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Settlement Collector, under Section 14 of the Revenue Act, who again allowed the appeal vide order dated 07.02.2015 (Annexure P-2) and set aside the order dated 07.08.2014 and remanded the case to Assistant Collector First Grade. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of remand, respondent No.1 filed an appeal against order dated 07.02.2015, before Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, under Section 14 of the Revenue Act, which was allowed 4 vide order dated 10.01.2017 (Annexure P-3) and resultantly, order dated 07.02.2015 (Annexure P-2) was set aside and order dated 07.08.2014 (Annexure P-1) passed by Assistant Collector First Grade was upheld. 7. Petitioner thereafter preferred a Revision Petition No. 2 of 2017 before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) against the order dated 10.01.2017, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, which came to be dismissed on 26.07.2023 (Annexure P-4). 8. Being dissatisfied by the said order, petitioner filed the Civil Writ petition before this Court which came to be dismissed on 11.12.2024, by the learned Single Judge, against which order, the instant appeal has been preferred. 9. The reason which weighed with the learned Single Judge to dismiss the writ petition as such was that the present appellant has been allotted one chunk of land irrespective of market value, vicinity of the road and therefore, keeping in view the history as such that the matter had been pending consideration since the mode of partition was firstly done on 23.08.2008, and the final partition had been done on 04.02.2012. On account of the litigation preferred, the matter was still hanging fire and 5 even Civil Suit had been filed on the basis of which further proceedings as such were sought to be brought to stand still. 10. Counsel for the appellant has again tried to re- open the issue on the ground that the mode of partition as such had been finalized and the partition was not in consonance with the said mode and therefore, argued that two orders passed by the Revenue Authorities were liable to be set aside and the order dated 07.02.2015 was liable to be restored and in the alternative matter was to be remanded to the Assistant Collector. 11. As noticed, the land in question as such is 13 kanals 4 marlas and respondent No. 1 Hakam Singh had initiated the partition proceedings. It has been found that the possession as such has been with the present appellant who is an ex-serviceman and therefore, was wanting to hold on to the land as such in some manner or the other. As per the mode of partition, a separate khata has to be created for both the brothers and the shortage is to be made in a systematic manner by maintaining the possession by way of partition and as per Clause 5, the land consolidation shall be taken into account in partition. Further, as per Clause 6, the 6 existing road had to remain accessible for common use and benefit and the inhabited area has to be recorded in the name of the respective possessors. The only Clause which has apparently been violated is that the land adjoining to the road had to be partitioned as such which is stated not to have been given to the present appellant. 12. From the record, it transpired that a largest chunk of land as such of 8 kanals 13 marlas has gone to the appellant which is adjoining to his house whereas the smaller chunk of land of 4 kanals 5 marlas has been allotted to respondent in three different places. In order to give a path to both the brothers, khasra No. 544/22 has been kept as joint, so that, there is approach to both the patches of land separately which is also in consonance with Clause 6 that existing road has to be remain accessible for common use and benefit and thus the carving out of the path as such is only for the proper use of the land and principles of consolidation have been kept in mind whereby one chunk of land is being given for proper utilization to the appellant. 13. It is in such circumstances, the Revenue Authorities have come to the conclusion that the motive and spirit of the law of partition should be to avoid future 7 litigation between the parties and partition has to be done so that both the persons can respectively enjoy their shares without any future litigation. The prejudice as such thus apparently has not been caused to the petitioner, in any manner, as he is successor to a largest chunk of land in contrast to his brother who has got a smaller share which is in separate portions. In such circumstances, the Authorities have set aside the order dated 07.02.2015, whereby the matter had been remanded by the Settlement Collector for the second time. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals) also while examining the said issue accordingly dismissed the Revision petition in view of the facts and circumstances of the case by making the following observations. “11.On considering pleadings of the petitioner the main contentions of the petitioner are that the mode of partition has been violated while partitioned the land on spot by not observing the principle consolidation of holding, by not allowing the land to the present petitioner adjacent to his abadi and by creating a path which was not available on spot. From perusal of the record of Trial Court it is clear that a compact area/block of land has been allowed in favour of the present petitioner bearing Khasra No. 544/4. area measuring 8-13 Kanal and as such the petitioner cannot claim that the principle of consolidation of holding has not been followed. Further, there is nothing on record to prove the contention of the petitioner that no land adjacent to his abadi has been 8 allotted to him. So far as the contention of the petitioner qua creation of a path in concerned from record, it is clear that path has been carved out by giving Khasra No. 544/2 and the same has been kept joint in accordance with the contention of mode of partition. Moreover, access is required to be given to each and every plot allowed during the partition in order to avail any future allegations between the parties and as such by creating such path an interest of present petitioner has not been jeopardized in any manner. The record shows that the entire land is in the possession of the present petitioner and he is trying to deal with the partition proceedings as is also clear from his act and conduct before the Trial Court, when he kept on delaying the proceedings on one pretext or the other. Thus, the Ld. Commissioner, has passed a well reasoned and detailed order after keeping in view the factual position available on record and the provisions of law and the same requires no interference by invoking revisional jurisdiction.” 14. Resultantly, keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that in principle, the mode of partition has been adhered to apart from slight violation of one Clause. The admission as such is in the writ petition as such by the appellant that the land has been allotted to him in single isolated chunk and only disadvantage is that his brother has been given separate blocks and he has not been granted the land abutting to the road or any land equivalent in comparison having access to the road. Nothing has been 9 placed as such on the record in the form of a site plan to show that in which manner the appellant has been aggrieved on the basis of which we would have interfered with the well reasoned judgment of the learned Single Judge and the authorities below. 15. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the authorities below which have been rightly upheld by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion and observations, the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference and accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed along with pending applications, if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge July 18, 2025. (cm Thakur)