Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 218 (HP)

KALAWATI v. PARTAP SINGH (D) THROUGH LRS

2001-08-31

S.S.NEGI

body2001
ORDER: 1. This revision petition has come up for hearing on the recommendations of commissioner, Shimla Division. The Commissioner has recommended that the orders dated 17.10.1996 and 27.05.1997 passed by the Assistant Collector IInd grade and Collector respectively be set aside and the directions be issued to the Assistant Collector IInd to attest the mutation afresh after affording due opportunity to the petitioner. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the Assistant Collector IInd grade, Shimla (Rural) attested mutation No. 1230 on 17.10.1996 in favour of Shri Pratap Singh present respondent on the basis of : relinquishment deed purported to be executed by Smt Kalawati, petitioner. 3. Against this order of the Assistant Collector IInd grade dated 17.10.1996, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector Sub-Division, Shimla (Rural) on the grounds that the impugned order of the Assistant collector passed on mutation No. 1230 of Mauza Patti Rihana was illegal, wrong, unjust and without jurisdiction and contrary to the facts of the case as the order had been passed at the back of the petitioner and as such she was condemned unheard and that the documents on the basis of which the impugned mutation was entered and attested was without her consent and knowledge. It was contended that had the petitioner wanted to give up her share of land, she would have given the same in favour of her all brothers. The present respondent prepared the alleged deed of transfer of land by relinquishment by fraud and misrepresentation. 4. The learned Collector after going through the case, held that the Assistant Collector IInd grade had not committed any mistake and irregularity and he rightly attested the impugned mutation. He dismissed the appeal vide his order dated 27.05.1997. 5. Feeling dis-satisfied with this order, he present petitioner filed revision petition before the commissioner, Shimla Division mainly on the grounds that she was not called by the Assistant Collector IInd grade below at the time of attestation of mutation and was condemned unheard. The transaction under challenge had taken place on account of mis-representation of facts by playing fraud. 6. The learned Commissioner after hearing both the parties and going through the record observed that the case at hand was processed in a slip shod manner. The transaction under challenge had taken place on account of mis-representation of facts by playing fraud. 6. The learned Commissioner after hearing both the parties and going through the record observed that the case at hand was processed in a slip shod manner. The petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing and has accordingly recommended that the orders passed by the lower courts be set-aside and case needs to be remanded for fresh inquiry. These recommendations are the subject of consideration before us in the present proceedings. The matter has been heard and the relevant records have been gone into. 7. The learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the recommendations made by the learned Commissioner are in order and be accepted whereas the learned counsel for respondents contested the recommendations and argued that the orders passed by the lower courts be affirmed and the recommendations be turned down. 8. The leaned counsel for respondents sought to controvert the recommendations mainly on the plea that the mutation has been attested on the registered relinquishment deed, therefore mutation cannot be at variance from the registered deed. The perusal of record reveals that the petitioner has not been heard and the mutation has been attested at her back. She also claims that the said deed has been got executed by the respondents by misrepresentation. As the petitioners valuable rights to property are involved in the matter, therefore she deserves adequate opportunity to defend her claim. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the matter is remanded to Assistant Collector, Shimla for fresh trial and decision after affording due opportunity to the petitioner. Consequently the recommendations are accepted and the orders passed by the Assistant Collector on 17.10.1996 and affirmed by collector vide order dated 27.5.1997 are set-aside. Orders be communicated to the parties and case file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion.