Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 234 (HP)

BALERIA RAM v. BANSI RAM

2001-09-11

S.S.NEGI

body2001
ORDER S.S. Negi, IAS. :- This revision petition preferred by Sh. Baleria Ram petitioner, is directed against the order dated 20.9.1991 passed by the Land Reforms Officer. Jogindernagar in case file Np. Ranaropa - 3 whereby the application filed by the present petitioner Sh. Baleria Ram for the review of order dated 4.3.1991 of the Land Reforms Officer, was rejected. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the Assistant Collector. Jogindernagar vide mutation No. 281 dated 17.5.1986. conferred proprietary rights under Section 104 of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms officer 1978(?) in favour of the present petitioner. Sh. Baleria Ram in respect of land comprised in khata No.3/14 khasra No.364. measuring 1-18-3 Bighas situated in Mauza Kas. Tehsil Jogindernagar Distt. Mandi. 3. Against this mutation order dated 17.5.1986 of the Assistant Collector Ilnd Grade. S/Sh. Chaman. Bansi. Mulhu sons of Sardaru and Fateh Singh. Kanshi Ram. Netar Singh. Mot alias Mast Ram sons of Sain filed a appeal before the Sub-Divisional Collector Jogindernagar on the grounds that the order of the Assistant Collector Ilnd Grade granting proprietary rights to the tenant Baleria was against the provisions of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act as the mutation in question was sanctioned during the course of resumption proceedings already pending decision before the Land Reforms Officer Jogindenagar. 4. The learned Sub-Divisional Collector Jogindernagar after hearing both the parties and going through the record accepted the appeal vide order dated 31.5.1990 and set-aside the order of mutation dated 17.5.1986 of Assistant Collector Ilnd Grade. Thereafter Sh. Baleris the present petitioner appears to have associated with the proceedings before the Land Reforms Officer Jogindernagar who vide his order dated 4.3.1991 ordered resumption of land measuring 0-19-2 Bighas Comprised in khasra No.364/I in favour of landowners and further conferred the proprietary rights on the tenant in respect of remaining part i.e. khasra No.364/2 measuring 0-19-1 Bighas. Against this order of the Land Reforms Officer dated 4.3.1991. Sh. Baleria Ram the present petitioner filed a review application before the Land Reforms Officer on the grounds that the order was passed against a dead person as during the pendency of the application one of the landowners Sh. Against this order of the Land Reforms Officer dated 4.3.1991. Sh. Baleria Ram the present petitioner filed a review application before the Land Reforms Officer on the grounds that the order was passed against a dead person as during the pendency of the application one of the landowners Sh. Bansi had died and therefore no order could be passed against dead person under the law and further he (the petitioner) had not been afforded proper opportunity to prove his case and to adduce evidence to the effect that the landowners owned more land than the prescribed limit under the Act. hence were not eligible to resume the land. 5. The Land Reforms Officer after hearing both the parties and having gone through the record held that the LRs of the deceased Sh. Bansi had already been brought on record and the applicant (present petitioner) had been given ample opportunity and he rejected the review application vide order dated 20.9.1991 by upholding his earlier order dated 4.3.1991. 6. Dis-satisfied with this order of the Land Reforms Officer dated 20.9.1991. the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition before this court. 7. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner urged that the application was initiated by a dead person and therefore the proceedings concluded are illegal. It has also been claimed that the respondents, owned more than 3 acres of land and therefore were not entitled to resume any land from the tenants. 8. After considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and perusal of record, it is clear as per the order of the Land Reforms Officers that the application for resumption of land has been signed by Bansi himself ort 3.12.1975. There is no evidence on record that Shri. Bansi died prior to this date. Therefore the contention lacks any force and is rejected. 9. The second contention as to petitioners owning land more than prescribed limit under the Tenancy Act has also not been substantiated by the petitioner by adducing any evidence in support, thereof, this plea also lacks force. Resultantly this revision petition is without any force and is therefore dismissed. 10. Orders be communicated to the parties and the case file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion.