2025:HHC:29644 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3387 of 2012 Decided on: 28.08.2025 Sh. Khajana Ram … Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner : M/s V.D. Khidtta and Nishant Khidtta, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3-State. Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.4 to 6. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued quashing the impugned order dated 18.9.2006 passed by the Assistant Collector, 1" Grade, Arki (Annexure P-1) and the impugned order dated 29.8.2007 passed by the Collector, Sub Division, Arki (Annexure P-3) and the impugned order dated 20.10.2011 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla (Annexure P-5). (ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing respondents No. 1, and 3 to effect the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:29644 partition afresh taking into consideration the object of consolidation and the fact that the petitioners are in possession of the land measuring 8-11 Bighas in Khasra No. 185/114 and also the petitioners are having ownership and possession of the land measuring 10-10 Bighas comprised in Khasra No. 113/1, which adjoins and adjacent to Khasra Nos. 185/114 and 194/111 and also as per the judgment passed in RSA No. 275/1991 and possession of the land may kindly be given to the petitioners accordingly.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioner herein filed an application for partition of the suit land before learned Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Arki, Distt. Solan, H.P. After following the procedure and hearing the parties, learned Assistant Collector, 1st Grade prepared the Mode of Partition on 19.07.2005. The same, thereafter, was sent to the Field Agency for partition on the spot in terms of the Mode of Partition. After the partition on the spot, learned Assistant Collector, 1st Grade accepted the partition on 18.09.2006, as per Naksha (J), prepared by the Revenue Agency. This order was assailed by the petitioner by way of an Appeal before Collector, Sub-Division, Arki, Distt. Solan, H.P. The appeal was dismissed by Collector, Sub- Division, Arki, in terms of Annexure P-3, dated 29.08.2007 by returning the following findings:- 3 2025:HHC:29644 “I have examined the record of the case and heard the arguments and perused the written arguments submitted by Ld. Advocate of respondents as well as the directions given by Hon'ble High Court of H.P in RSA no. 275 of 1997 titled Ranjit Singh & others vs Devku & others. The Hon'ble High Court of H.P in RSA no. 257 of 1997 in Para 6 has clarified that the land measuring 12 Bigha 17 Bishwa sold to defendants no. 2 to 4 namely Ranjit Singh Yashwant Singh & Khem Singh comprised in Khasra no. 185/114 by Atma Ram out of his share shall continue to be in their ownership & possession". Thus, the court below has passed the order dated 18-9-06 according to the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh. On the basis of the application of the appellant and the reply filed by the respondents, I have came to the conclusion the partition has been conducted as per the mode of partition & as per possession of parties on the spot in compliance of the order of Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in RSA No.257 of 2997. Thus in the theme of the case of the Lower Court ie A.C Ist Grade Arld, there has been nothing done partially or erroneously by the Tehsildar, AC Ist Grade Arki. Hence the order passed by the AC Ist Grade Arki dated 18-09- 2006 in Partition file No. 12/9 of 2004 is upheld and it is ordered that the Partition be made accordingly. Announced in the open Court today on 29/8/2007 4 2025:HHC:29644 in the presence of parties. The file after due completion be sent to G.R.R. Ark.” 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision petition against the said order, which was dismissed by the Revisional Authority in terms of Annexure P-5, dated 20.10.2011 by returning the following findings:- “6. I have gone through the entire records of the Ld. Courts below and arguments put forth by the Ld. Counsels for both the parties and find that the Asstt. Collector 1 Grade has followed the procedure of partition in a careful and meticulous mannera. Full opportunity has been given to both the parties. No doubt, the possession should not be disturbed of any shareholder as far as possible in partition proceedings but this principle is not without restriction. Apart from this, nature and kind of land and making good the area of every shareholder as per his entitlement in/view/in partition of share are other such parameters which are to be kept proceedings. The area which is mainly the bone of contention in this revision petition has been strictly allotted to the respondents as per orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh and there is no confusion or ambiguity about the implementation of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court. 7. I have gone through the tatima prepared by the field staff as placed on page 113-14 and also Map-j placed on page-111-12 and 115-16 of the file of the Asstt. Collector 5 2025:HHC:29644 1" Grade and do not find anything wrong in the partition proceedings. 8. In view of the above discussion, there are no reasons to interfere with the impugned orders of the learned Sub Divisional Collector and the Asstt. Collector 1 Grade. Accordingly, this revision petition is rejected and dismissed and the orders of the Lower Courts are upheld.” 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the said orders passed by the learned Authority below are not sustainable in the eyes of law as the Authority below erred in not appreciating that neither the Mode of Partition nor the Instrument of Partition was in accordance with law. Learned Counsel also argued that the judgment of this Court in RSA No.275 of 1997, dated 12.12.2001 has been completely misread and misconstrued by all the Authorities and the compromise effected between the parties was not taken into consideration while drawing the Mode of Partition. Accordingly, he prayed that as the impugned orders are per se perverse, the petition be allowed, as prayed for. 5. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private respondents submitted that a perusal of the orders passed by the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority clearly demonstrate that the partition proceedings were carried out 6 2025:HHC:29644 by the Authorities strictly in terms of the verdict given by this Court in RSA No.275 of 1997, which was decided in terms of compromise entered into between the parties. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that otherwise also, in exercise of its power of Judicial Review, this Court is not to sit as an Appellate Court and as no procedural infirmity has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the course of the adjudication by the learned Authorities while deciding the Appeal as well as the Revision, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in light of the partition that was effected by the Authorities in accordance with law, the parties are now in settled position thereof for more than 15 years and therefore, any interference, at this stage, by the Court will prejudice the interest of all the parties. Accordingly, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner well as learned Senior Counsel for the private respondents and have also carefully gone through the impugned orders as well as other documents appended with the petition. 7. Before referring to the impugned orders, this Court would like to referr to the judgment that was passed by this Court in 7 2025:HHC:29644 RSA No.275 of 1997, titled Shri Ranjeet Singh and others Versus Smt. Devku & another, decided on 12.12.2001, copy whereof is appended with the petition as Annexure P-7. A perusal of this judgment demonstrates that during the pendency of this Regular Second Appeal, a compromise was effected into between the parties as Ex.PX, alongwith CMP No.958 of 2001 and the Appeal was disposed of in terms of the said compromise, but by passing the following direction also:- “6. RSA No.257 of 1997, titled: Atma Ram vs. Devku withdrawn. It is clarified Bighas 17 Biswas sold to Ranjit Singh, Yashwant Singh in Khasra No.185/114 by Atma and Others is dismissed 在 日 that the land measuring 12 defendants No.2 to 4: namely, and Khem Singh, comprised Ram, out of his share, shall continue to be in their ownership and possession.” 8. In the backdrop of the findings returned in Para-6 of the said judgment, if one peruses the order passed by the Appellate Authority, one finds that the appeal of the present petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by placing reliance on the said para of the judgment passed by this Court and by holding that as the partition was effected in light of the judgment of this Court and more so, contents of Para-6 thereof, there was no merit in the appeal. Learned Revisional Authority also in Para-6 of the order 8 2025:HHC:29644 categorically held that neither any procedural infirmity in the proceedings that were taken by the Appellate Authority was pointed out, nor it could be demonstrated that what was done by the Revenue Authorities in the course of the partition was not as per the orders of the High Court in the Regular Second Appeal. In fact, the Revisional Authority held that the area which was mainly the bone of contention in the revision petition was strictly allotted to the respondents as per the order of the High Court and there was no confusion or ambiguity about the implementation of the order of the High Court. 9. In light of the findings returned by the learned Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority and in light of the fact that it could not be demonstrated during the hearing of this petition that these findings were perverse and not borne out from the record of the case, this Court does not finds any occasion to interfere with the same, in exercise of its power of Judicial Review. This is more so when it is apparent from the judgment of this Court in RSA No.275 of 1997 that the private respondents were held to be in ownership and possession of khasra No.185/114, then in the partition proceedings, but obvious, these khasra numbers were to be allotted to them. 9 2025:HHC:29644 10. In light of the above observation, as this Court does not finds any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 28, 2025 (Rishi)