( 2026:HHC:4973 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.76 of 2026 Decided on : 27.02.2026 Pawan Kumar ...Appellant Versus State of HP and Others …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant: Mr. Sumesh Raj and Mr. Vinod Kumar Thakur, Advocates. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Sidhart Jalta, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents/State. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) The present Letters Patent Appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 3437 of 2024 dated 29.12.2025. The learned Single Judge has upheld the order of the Financial Commissioner dated 15.01.2024 (Annexure P-13), who further upheld the order of the Collector, Sub- Division Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P., dated 16.11.2023, which in turn upheld the order dated 20.10.2023 passed in partition case No. 41/2018, whereby the applications raising the question of title, as well as the transfer of the matter to the Assistant Collector, were dismissed. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes -2- 2. On perusal of the same, the learned Single Judge, while upholding the concurrent findings recorded by the revenue authorities noticed that the partition proceedings were initiated in June, 2018, and that the present appellant had, as such, raised the question of title in October, 2023, after five years of filing the partition proceedings. It was further noticed that the mode of partition was drawn on 29th October, 2018, which was finalized on 24th September, 2019. An appeal was filed against the said order and there was a direction by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi to partition the land in accordance with the order, which was being complied with by the revenue authorities when the question of title, as such, was raised. 3. The Financial Commissioner had dismissed the revision petition on the ground that the plea had been raised at a belated stage. It was also observed that the father, who was the original owner of the land, had gifted the land in favour of the respondents- applicants, who had filed the partition proceedings, and the donor had never opted to challenge the said gift deed during his lifetime, and no issue of title had been raised at that time by the father, namely, Ishwar Dass. The civil suit, which had been filed in October, 2023, was held only to be an afterthought and as a tactic deployed by the petitioner to prolong the proceedings, and once there was a gift in favour of the private respondent and no court had held it to be bad in law, no question of law arose effecting the partition. -3- 4. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that once the issue of title, as such, is yet to be resolved and a civil suit has been filed challenging the gift deed dated 26th August, 2014, the proceedings should have been stayed and the issue of title should have been decided by the revenue authorities. However, we are not in a position to agree with the argument of the counsel for the appellant, keeping in view the peculiar facts and background of the case. 5. A perusal of the gift deed dated 26.8.2014, which has been placed on record as Annexure P-1, would go on to show that his father, Ishwar Dass, through the present appellant, who is the General Power of Attorney, had transferred the land in question in favour of Ashish Singh Chaudhary, respondent No. 6. After a period of almost four years, the partition proceedings had been initiated on 2nd June, 2018. 6. As noticed, it would be clear from the order dated 26th June, 2023, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, that when the proceedings were initially pending before the Revenue Authority, the present appellant, along with the other co-sharers, had made a joint statement on 10th July, 2019, and had consented to the partition. 7. It is not disputed that respondent No. 6 has constructed a building over the land which was gifted in his favour, and apparently, in such circumstances, he is enjoying exclusive possession of the -4- construction made by him. The Divisional Commissioner also recorded that, apart from the gift deed, there was also a sale deed, and while allowing the appeal of respondent No. 6, which was against the order dated 30th March, 2022, passed by the Sub-Divisional Commissioner, Nadaun, came to the conclusion that the khata of Ishwar Dass and the present appellant, Pawan Kumar were to be kept joint and the khata of Dinesh Kumar was to be separated. Similarly, the khata of respondent No. 6 (Ashish Singh Chaudhary), who was the beneficiary of the gift deed, was also to be separated, which had not been done by the authority below in its order of partition dated 24th September, 2019. 8. Resultantly, the Commissioner held that the mode of partition is the basic order in partition proceedings and that the rest of the proceedings are executory in nature. Since the basic order had neither been revised nor amended, resultantly, the matter was remanded with a direction to the Trial Court to carry out the partition strictly in accordance with the mode of partition so as to complete the proceedings within two months. 9. It is also to be noticed that the private respondents, on account of the delay as such in the form of finalization of the partition proceedings, prior to that date also had approached this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 738 of 2019. The Coordinate Bench, while disposing of the said petition on 3rd May, 2019, directed that the -5- partition proceedings be decided in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, but not later than three months. The said order reads as under:- “ Notice of motion. On out asking, Mr. J.K. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. It is not necessary to call for any reply from the respondents in view of the nature of order we propose to pass. 2. The petitioner is a resident of Village Mahal Takroon, P.O. Gawal Pathar, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur. His grievance is that there are partition proceedings pending between him and Shri Ishwar Dass etc., in which the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, nadaun finalized the mode of partition on 29th October, 2018, a copy of which has been appended as Annexure P-2, however, in furtherance thereto, the land is not being partitioned. Hence, the petitioner seeks a direction for expeditious disposal of those proceedings. 3. Keeping in view the nature of the relief sought in the instant writ petition, the same is disposed of without expressing any views on merits with a direction to the Assistant collector 2nd Grade, Nadaun or any other superior authority to hear all the parties concerned and decide the pending partition proceedings in accordance with law, as early as possibly, but later than three months.” 10. The matter was then sent back for completion of partition proceedings. An application was apparently filed by raising the issue of title, and eventually an order dated 20th October, 2023, whereby the same was rejected on the ground that the mode of partition had been prepared earlier was sent to the field and the partition was effected and the mutation record was called for. 11. The matter was then taken in appeal by the present appellant, whereby it was noticed that the appellant was filing appeals again and again and intended to keep the partition proceedings pending, despite earlier directions issued to complete the partition -6- within a period of two months. Resultantly, the learned Assistant Collector was directed to proceed further in accordance with the earlier order upheld by the Divisional Commissioner. 12. The Financial Commissioner, in its order dated 15th January, 2024, noticed the entire background and held that the question of title can be raised only at the initial stage, before the preparation of the mode of partition, and further recorded that no question had been raised by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner at the relevant point of time. The civil suit had been filed only after the remand, and therefore, upheld the orders of the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Nadaun. 13. The Financial Commissioner also observed that the order dated 26th June, 2023, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi had never been challenged and that the application had been filed at a belated stage raising the question of title thereafter and has been thus rightly rejected. 14. The above sequence of events would go on to show that the appellant had attempted to frustrate not only the orders of the revenue authorities but also that of the Coordinate Bench, which has been reproduced hereinabove, by attempting to raise frivolous issues at a belated stage after having executed a gift deed on account of his father in favour of private respondent No. 6 and to which he himself is the Power of Attorney. We are of the considered opinion that the -7- authorities have not faulted in any manner in rejecting the application. It is a fit case for imposition of exemplary costs, however, since we have not called upon respondent No. 6, we refrain from imposing the same. 15. Accordingly, the present Letters Patent Appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 27th February, 2026 (Tarun/Mamta)