K.S. Garewal, J. - (1.) RAJA Ram alias Rajender and Het Ram are the petitioners before this Court, who have sought quashing of the order of the Tehsildar -cum -Assistant Collector, Ilnd Grade, Hissar, passed on April 28, 1999 (Annexure P -3), whereby the objections filed by the petitioners were rejected and as a consequence the instrument of partition was drawn up.
(2.) MOHAN Lal and Raja Ram, respondents 2 and 3, had applied for partition of 240 kanals of land situated in village Chikanwas, Tehsil and District Hissar, and im -pleaded all the co -sharers including the petitioners. The application was entertained by the Tehsildar -cum -Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Hissar and notices were issued to all the co -sharers. Only the petitioners elected to file objections against Naksha "K" (mode of partition). Their objections were that some co -sharers had not been impleaded and they should be given separate lots (Kurras) and a suit for possession against the applicants and other co -sharers was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Hissar, which involved a question of title. Therefore, unless and until the question of title was decided, the mode of partition should not be approved. The objections were rejected by the Revenue Officer and thereafter the modified mode of partition was issued on November 3, 1998, to which the petitioners again filed objections dated March 12, 1999 (Annexure P -2). These objections were also rejected by the impugned order Annexure P -3 and the Revenue Officer directed preparation of the instrument of partition. The petitioners have challenged the proceedings primarily on the ground that order Annexure P -3, was without jurisdiction. Assistant Collector, Ilnd Grade, had violated the principles of natural justice by not affording an opportunity of hearing to the co -sharers and the application for partition was liable to be set aside on the ground that all the co -sharers had not been im -pleaded.
(3.) THE petition was contested by respondents 2 and 3, who filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections as regards suppression of material facts from the Court. According to the respondents the petition was liable to be dismissed as after filing the same on August 10, 1999, on the following day during motion hearing before the admitting Bench, learned Counsel for the petitioners had stated that no appeal was competent against the order Annexure P -3, which stand was reiterated on September 27, 1999. whereupon status quo regarding possession was directed to be maintained and notice was issued, but in fact the petitioners lodged an appeal before the Collector, Hissar on September 15, 1999, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (Copies of the affidavit of the petitioners and the grounds of appeal have been annexed as Annexure A -1 and A -2 with Civil Misc. Application No. 27581 of 1999). From this it appears that on the date when a notice of the writ petition was issued to the respondents, an appeal of the petitioners was in fact pending before the Collector, Hissar. The petitioners suppressed this important fact and contended that the order was not an appealable one.;