Neel Chand v. Divisional Commissioner, Mandi & Ors.,2026

Respondent No. 4 initiated proceedings under Section 123 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 seeking partition of the jointly held land. The Assistant Collector Second Grade framed the mode of partition on 19 October 2020.

The petitioner challenged the partition proceedings before the Collector. Among other objections, he contended that his brother, Som Dev, one of the co-sharers, was deaf and dumb and therefore proceedings concerning him could not have continued without appointment of a court guardian under Order XXXII Rule 3 CPC.

The petitioner also argued that another co-sharer, Ram Chand, had died in 1985 and that his legal heirs had not been properly brought on record. He further contended that the proposed partition would disturb his existing possession.

The Collector dismissed the appeal on 6 August 2021. Subsequently, the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, exercising the powers of Financial Commissioner (Appeals), affirmed the decision on 16 May 2026. The petitioner then approached the High Court. 

On the principal objection concerning Som Dev, the Court noted that he had been repeatedly served with summons. On several occasions he personally received the summons and signed them in Hindi. Despite service, he did not appear before the Revenue Court and was eventually proceeded against ex parte.

The Court rejected the argument that being deaf and dumb, by itself, established that Som Dev was a person of unsound mind. The Court explained that the requirement of Order XXXII Rule 3 CPC would arise where it is established that a person is incapable of protecting his interests in the subject property because of mental infirmity. 

The Court also noted that Som Dev had been served before the appellate and revisional authorities and had himself not raised an objection regarding the absence of a guardian.

Regarding Ram Chand, the Court accepted the concurrent findings of the revenue authorities that his legal heirs had already been brought on record during the partition proceedings. The petitioner had not raised this particular objection in the writ petition. 

Consequently, the Court found no ground to interfere with the orders of the revenue authorities and dismissed the petition. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of. 

The Court treated mental infirmity as the relevant consideration under Order XXXII Rule 3 CPC. Therefore, the existence of a disability, by itself, does not automatically trigger the requirement of appointment of a guardian. The Court considered the factual circumstances surrounding service of summons. Som Dev had personally received summons on multiple occasions and had signed them in Hindi. The revenue authorities consequently had material before them indicating that he could read, write and comprehend the summons.

More importantly, there was no finding that he was mentally incapable of protecting his interests. 

The judgment also emphasizes that service of process is an important consideration when determining whether proceedings involving a particular co-sharer were conducted fairly.

Som Dev had been served repeatedly, including before the appellate and revisional authorities, but did not appear and did not himself raise the guardian objection. 

The High Court declined to interfere with the concurrent factual findings recorded by the revenue authorities.

The Collector had rejected the petitioner's challenge, and the Divisional Commissioner had affirmed that decision. The High Court found no sufficient legal basis to disturb those findings in the writ proceedings. 

The Court also considered the petitioner's contention concerning Ram Chand, who had died in 1985. The revenue authorities had found that his legal heirs had already been brought on record.

Since this issue had already been considered by the authorities and was not raised in the writ petition, it did not provide a basis for interference. 

The judgment is significant for partition proceedings and procedural safeguards because it distinguishes between a person's physical/sensory disability and legal incapacity arising from mental infirmity. It indicates that the procedural protection under Order XXXII Rule 3 CPC cannot be invoked merely on the basis of deafness or inability to speak without establishing the statutory basis for requiring a guardian.