IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RSA No.: 156 of 1999. Decided on: 17.03.2009. Ranjeet Singh. … … … Appellant. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. … … … Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1. For the appellant: Mr. Pardeep Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Sh. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): The appellant (here-in-after referred to as the plaintiff for convenience) has filed a suit for declaration in the court of Sub Judge, Rajgarh. The suit was decreed on 31.8.1998. The respondent-defendant (here-in-after referred to as the defendant for convenience) filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Sirmour against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, dated 31.8.1998. The first appellate Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - Court partly allowed the appeal and the judgment and decree, dated 31.8.1998 was affirmed to the extent that the plaintiff was declared owner in possession of the suit land and the defendant-State was restrained from causing any interference with the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the disputed land without having taking recourse to law. However, the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside to the extent, whereby it had been declared that the proceedings for review initiated by the Assistant Collector were without jurisdiction. Mr. Pardeep Verma, Advocate has drawn the attention of the Court to Ext.P.19, dated 23.10.1996. The text of order, dated 23.10.1996 reads thus:- “Whereas, Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Rajgarh, vide letter No.T.R/Reader/96-1310, dated 14.8.19996 has requested for sanction of review of his orders passed in partition cases No.19/93 and 11/95 and decided on 2.5.1994 and 5.6.1995 respectively. I have gone through the case file and revenue papers carefully and prima facie there is a case for review. Therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in Section 16(I)(a) of the Land Revenue Act, 1954, I, Sub Divisional Collector, Rajgarh hereby allow the review of the two partition cases mentioned above subject to the condition that the orders shall not be modified or reversed unless reasonable opportunity of being heard is given to the parties affected. Further Shri Ranjeet Singh has objected to the review of these partition and he may also be heard along with other parties before review. Two case files along with representation of Shri Ranjeet Singh are returned.” - 3 - A bare perusal of the order shows that the appellant had prayed for hearing along with other parties before the Revenue Court. A specific ground has been taken in para-7 of the plaint that the objections were also filed before the Collector, Rajgarh Sub Division. However, neither the appellant has been heard, nor the objections filed by him have been considered by the Collector before passing the order, dated 23.10. 1996. In the present case the Assistant Collector ordered the partition of the disputed land and prepared the mode of partition on 5.6.1995. The instrument of partition was also prepared and confirmed on 28.6.1995. The request for review was made on 14.8.1996. This request was made after more than one year of the passing of the order. Delay has not been condoned and there is no mention that there was sufficient cause for not preferring the application within the stipulated time of 90 days. Consequently, the regular second appeal is allowed and with the consent of the parties, the Collector, Rajgarh Sub Division is directed to decide the review application in partition case file No.11/1995 afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant-plaintiff within a period of eight weeks from today. The parties are directed to appear before the Collector, Rajgarh Sub Division, District Sirmour, H.P. on 27.3.2009. The Collector, Rajgarh Sub Division is directed to pass a speaking order. The Collector, Rajgarh Sub Division shall also take into consideration the objections filed by the parties. No costs. March 17, 2009. (Rajiv Sharma) (rkv). Judge. - 4 -