Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 329 (HP)

AMAR CHAND v. THAKARI DEVI

2001-11-14

S.S.NEGI

body2001
ORDER S.S. Negi, IAS. :- This revision petition under Section 114(3) H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. 1972 has been filed by Sh. Amar Chand petitioner before this court against the order dated 19.9.1997 passed by the Divisional Commissioner. Kangra in an appeal No. 12/94 by virtue of which the appeal filed by the present respondent before him was accepted and the case was remanded back to the Assistant Collector for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the Assistant Collector Ilnd Grade Amb sanctioned a mutation No.3897 on 30.8.1982 under Section 104 of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. 1972 in favour of the present petitioner Shri Amar Chand conferring proprietary rights in respect of land comprising khasra No.1512 measuring 3.10 kanal previusly owned by one. Sh. Santu Owner situated in Mauza Mubarakpur. Tehsil Amb. Distt. Una. 3. This order was challenged by Smt. Thakri Devi the present respondent before the Collector Amb on the grounds that the impugned land was in her possession as owner and prior to it this land had been in possession of her predecessor-in-interest as non occupancy tenant recorded in the revenue record right from 1944-45 to 1976 on payment of rent to the owners who had already become owner of this land and then she had succeeded to his estate as owner. It was further contended that in the Jamabandi for the year 1978-79. her name and that her predecessor-in- interest was deleted without any order and no notice had been issued to the present respondent Smt. Thakri Devi or her predecessor-in-interest by the revenue authorities. It was alleged that while effecting this change of entry in the name of present petitioner Shri Amar Chand. no enquiry was made by the revenue Officer and as such this change had been made against the mandatory provision of law and the impugned order had been passed behind the back of the present respondent. 4. The learned Collector after hearing both the parties and going through the record held that the impugned mutation was sanctioned by the Assistant Collector Ilnd Grade in the presence of parties i.e. Santu owner and the present petitioner Sh. 4. The learned Collector after hearing both the parties and going through the record held that the impugned mutation was sanctioned by the Assistant Collector Ilnd Grade in the presence of parties i.e. Santu owner and the present petitioner Sh. Amar Chand non- occupancy tenant on 30.8.1982 and the mutation in question had been incorporated in the Jamabandi and the appeal by a third party had no relevance at that belated stage and rejected the appeal vide order dated 1.10.1993. 5. Feeling aggrieved of this order of the Collector. Smt. Thakri Devi present respondent filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner Kangra on the grounds that the impugned land had been in her possession as owner and prior to her. the same was in possession of her prececessor non-occupancy tenant on pa\rnent of rent to the owners-right from 1944-45 to 1976. This entry was deleted in Jamabandi for the year 1978-79 without any reason and without any notice to the present respondent and as such this change was illegal and against the law as the Revenue Authority had no jurisdiction to effect any change without giving notice to the present respondent. 6. The learned Divisional Commissioner after hearing both the parties and going through the record concluded that the land in dispute that the land in dispute was owned by one Sh. Sant Ram land owner and that Faquir and Surmi sons ofMandu were non- occupancy tenants under the landowner and by virtue of coming in force the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. the proprietor rigts were to be conferred upon Shri Faquir and Surmi but their names in revenue record were changed without any order in the Jamabandi for the year 1978-79. by substituting the name of petitioner Amar Chand. The learned Divisional Commissioner. Kangra therefore accepted the appeal of the present respondent Smt. Thakri Devi vide order dated 19.09.1997 and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector Ilnd Grade for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law. 7. Dis-satisfied with this order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 19.9.1997. Sh. Amar Chand petitioner has preferred the present revision petition before us. 8. The records were requisitioned and the parties were afforded opportunity to address their claims in this court. 9. The matter has been heard and the records have also been perused. 10. 7. Dis-satisfied with this order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 19.9.1997. Sh. Amar Chand petitioner has preferred the present revision petition before us. 8. The records were requisitioned and the parties were afforded opportunity to address their claims in this court. 9. The matter has been heard and the records have also been perused. 10. The first ground pressed on behalf of the petitioner is that the learned Commissioner did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate second appeal under Section 61. where under an order or decree confirmed on first appeal, no further appeal lies. This contention is without any merit, since the case falls within the provision of Chapter X of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act where under relevant provision for appeal, revision is contained in Section 114 which provide for appeal to the Commissioner against the order passed by the Collector under that Chapter. There being specific provision for appeal under the relevant Chapter, general provision shall not apply in derogation thereof. Therefore this plea is without any force. 11. The second contention of the petitioner with regard to the presumption of truth to the revenue entries is also not tenable since such presuption is attachable only to those entries which are legally constituted. As the entries are shown to have been altered without any order of the competent authority, therefore the case has rightly been remanded by the learned Commissioner for appropriate equiry and orders. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders. Consequently, the revision petition is without any force and is therefore dismissed. 12. Orders be communicated to the parties and case file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion.