Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 248 (HP)

PARMA NAND v. STATE OF HP

2001-09-22

S.S.NEGI

body2001
ORDER 1. This revision petition preferred by Sh. Parma Nand petitioner, is directed against the order dated 3.9.1996 passed by the Commissioner Shimla Division in Revenue appeal No. 207/95 whereby the appeal of the present petitioner was dismissed. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the present petitioner Sh. Parma Nand made an application-to the Settlement Officer and Tehsildar (Settlement) Shimla stating therein that he had been in physical possession of land comprising khasra No. 13, measuring 5-4 Bighas situated at mauza Kasumpti-Koti since 1960 uninterruptedly but his possession was recorded only to the extent of 0-10 Bighas during the current settlement. He requested that his possession over the entire area of khasra No. 13, measuring 5-4 bighas after spot inspection be recorded. 3. The Settlement Collector conducted the enquiry into the matter through the field Settlement staff and it was found that during settlement operations Khasra Nos. 16,18,19,24,25,26,27,30 and 31 were covered out from the old khasra No. 13 of which khasra Nos. 18, 19 and 25 area measuring 335-47 sq. decimeters were recorded in the possession of Sh. Parma Nand. The Settlement Collector also observed that the petitioner had managed to record his possession in the revenue records fraudulently and therefore, deserved to be evicted from the land. Accordingly the earned Collector rejected the application of the petitioner vide order dated 29.6.1995 with further direction to Assistant Collector, I Grade, Shimla Urban to initiate the eviction proceedings against Shri Parma Nand from khasra Nos. 18,19,25,27 and 30 in accordance with law. 4. Aggrieved of this order of the Settlement collector dated 29.6.1995, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner Shimla Division on the grounds that the Collector (Settlement) had failed to take into consideration the factum of possession of the petitioner in respect of the land in dispute and rejected the application simply on hypothesis and conjectures. The learned Collector (Settlement) had also ignored the report of Naib-Tehsildar (Settlement) which stated that the land in question is in possession of the petitioner. 5. The learned Commissioner after hearing the arguments adduced by the learned counsel of the present petitioner and having perused the record of the case, held that the entries made in the khasra girdwari and plea of the petitioner regarding long and continuous possession allegedly since kharif 1971, were illegal and void, hence dismissed the appeal vide his order dated 3.6.1996. 6. 6. It is against this order, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition before us. 7. The records were requisitioned and the parties were afforded opportunity to put forward their claims. 8. The learned counsel for petitioner in the written arguments has submitted that the petitioner is in possession of the land and the Settlement Collector had no jurisdiction to delete the entries existing in number of jamabandis, and has prayed that his possession be recorded in the revenue records. The learned Distt. Attorney (Rev) in his written arguments has submitted that the Settlement Collector has rightly dismissed the plea of the petitioner as his entry in khasra girdawari vide rapat Rojnamcha dated 11.10.1971 was in flagrant violation of the provisions contained in HP. land Records Mannual and the entry was foisted with the connivance of the petitioner with the lower revenue staff. He has even objected to the fact of recording petitioner as tenant on some of the land as illegal. The Id. District Attorney prayed that the petitioner be ejected from the land 9. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of both the sides and perusal of record, the position that emerges the petitioner got himself recorded in possession of old khasra No. 13 on 11.10.1971 in khasra girdawari. There is no order to this effect on record to show as to how the petitioner came to be recorded in possession of the land in khasra Girdawari. Subsequently the petitioner also managed to secure ownership of part of the land. Since there is no valid order for making these entries in revenue record, I therefore the Settlement Collector has rightly ordered the land to be recorded in Government ownership and possession. There is no illegality in the orders passed by the Settlement Collector and on appeal by the Commissioner. 10. Orders be communicated to the parties and the case file of this Court be consigned to the record room after due completion.