Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 200 (HP)

BIHARI LAL v. THAKUR DASS

2001-08-20

S.S.NEGI

body2001
ORDER S.S. Negi, IAS :- This revision petition preferred by S/Sh. Bihari Lal and others sons of Late shri Tara. resident of Village Machhui. Tehsil Palampur. Distt. Kangra is directed against the order dated 15.10.1990 passed by the Sub-Divisonal Officer-Cum- Collector. Palampur in appeal No.27 of 1989 whereby the appeal of the present petitioners was dismissed. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that as per order of the Land Reforms Officer Palampur dated 30.8.1976 by which he ordered to resume 0-17-94 Hect. of land classified as Nehri and 0-10-04 as Banjar from the tenants out of the land in dispute as per Misal Haquiat Bandobast Nadid of Mohal Machhui and the rest of the land was ordered to be mutated in favour of the present respondents/tenants under Section 104 of Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. Mutation in pursuance thereof was attested by the Assistant Collector on 11.07.1988. 3. Against this order. S/Shri Bihari Lal. Kali Dass. Pardhan Singh sons of Tara the present petitioners filed an appeal before the sub-Divisional collector. Palampur on the grounds that the mutation was void abinitio. and not binding upon the petitioners for the reason that they were not informed and summoned by the Assistant Collector and that shri Pardhan Singh petitioner was serving in the army and that the Revenue Officer below had wrongly attested the mutation under Section 104 of the Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. It was also contended that the mutation was attested contrary to the order of Land Reforms Officer dated 30.8.1976. 4. The learned Collector after hearing both the parties and perusal of records dismissed the appeal vide order dated 15.10.1990 holding that the Land Reforms Officer had rightly passed the order conferring proprietary rights on the tenants and resumption of land in favour of respondents as per their entitlement on the basis of order dated 30.8.1976 of the Land Reforms Officer which was final in absence of any appeal. 5. Dis-satisfied with this order of the Collector dated 15.10.1990. S/Shri Bihari Lal and others have preferred this revision petition. 6. The records were requestioned and the parties summoned to present their claims. 7. The matter has been heard through the learned counsels appearing on behalf of both the sides. Written arguments have also been submitted on behalf of the parties, which have been placed on record. 8. S/Shri Bihari Lal and others have preferred this revision petition. 6. The records were requestioned and the parties summoned to present their claims. 7. The matter has been heard through the learned counsels appearing on behalf of both the sides. Written arguments have also been submitted on behalf of the parties, which have been placed on record. 8. The major thrust of attack on the impugned order is that the order passed by the Land Reforms Officer is illegal as provisions under Section 104 and Rule 21 of the Rules framed under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act was not complied with. It has also been forcefully argued that the respondents were not landowners and therefore not entitled to resume the land. A prayer has thus been made that the orders dated 30.8.1976 passed by Land Reforms Officer and the mutation dated 14.7.1988 be set-aside. The learned counsel for respondents controverted the arguments of petitioner by stating that the order passed by the lower Court are in order and be upheld. 9. Perusal of memorandum of petition show that in the prayer clause of petition the only prayer made is that the order dated 14.7.1988 passed on mutation 21 and 22 be set-aside. Therefore petitioner cannot submit more than what has been pleaded, therefore the petitioner cannot challenge the-propriety of order dated 30.8.1976 passed by the Land Reforms Officer. Even otherwise this order cannot be challenged in the proceedings initiated to assail the mutation based on the order dated 30.8.1976. No challenge can be made against the order dated 30.8.1976. passed by the Land Reforms officer at this stage in absence of any appeal/revision. Therefore it can be said that the order dated 30.8.1976 of Land Reforms Officer has attained finality. Once this order has been held to be final the only plea available to the petitioner is that the mutation No.21 attested on 14.7.1988 has not been attested in accordance with the order of Land Reforms officer dated 30.8.1976. Perusal of the order of Land Reforms Officer and mutation No.21 and 22 show that the mutation have not been attested as per the order of Land Reforms Officer dated 30.8.1976. 10. Therefore the orders passed on mutation No.21 and 22 are set- aside and the case is remanded to Assistant Collector for attesting mutations afresh as per order of the Land Reforms Officer dated 30.8.1976. 10. Therefore the orders passed on mutation No.21 and 22 are set- aside and the case is remanded to Assistant Collector for attesting mutations afresh as per order of the Land Reforms Officer dated 30.8.1976. The revision petition is accordingly partly accepted.11. Orders be communicated to the parties and the case file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion.