Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 269 (HP)

SHIV RAM THROUGH HIS LRS. v. KRISHAN SINGH

2002-09-18

S.S.NEGI

body2002
JUDGMENT S.S. Negi, IAS, FC. - This revision petition preferred by Sh. Shiv Ram and 2 others under Section 114 of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, is directed against the order dated 18.1.1984 passed by the Divisional Commissioner Mandi whereby she rejected the appeal filed by present petitioner by affirming the order of the District Collector, Bilaspur. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that Shri Krishan Singh the present respondent made an application to the Land Reforms Officer Ghumarwin for resumption of land which was dismissed in default on 8.4.1976 by the Land Reforms Officer, Ghumarwin. He made another application for setting aside the dismissal order dated 8.4.1976 which was also dismissed by the Land Reforms Officer vide order dated 19.11.1977 holding that the present respondent should have applied for restoration of the order instead of praying for "setting aside the aforesaid order and secondly the said application was not within the limitation. 3. Against this order of the Land Reforms Officer dated 19.11.1977, Shri Krishan Singh the present respondent filed an appeal before the Distt. Collector Bilaspur on the grounds that he was not afforded any opportunity of hearing by the Land Reforms Officer and that he being an literate person could not distinguish between restoration and setting aside the ex parte proceedings. 4. The learned Distt. Collector after hearing both the parties and going through the record accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the Land Reforms Officer, Ghumarwin vide order dated 18.1.1984 for deciding the application for restoration on merits. Feeling aggrieved of this order of the Distt. Collector dated 18.1.1984, Shri Shiv Ram and 2 others present petitioners filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner Mandi who after hearing both the parties and going through the record rejected the appeal vide her order dated 24.10.1986 and remanded the case to the Land Reforms Officer, Ghumarwin directing that the application for resumption of land moved by the present respondent be decided on the spot after giving opportunity of being heard to both the parties. 5. It is against this order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 24.10.1986 the petitioners have preferred the present revision petition before us. 6. The records were requisitioned and the parties were called to address their claims in the matter. 7. The matter has been heard and records have also been perused. 8. 5. It is against this order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 24.10.1986 the petitioners have preferred the present revision petition before us. 6. The records were requisitioned and the parties were called to address their claims in the matter. 7. The matter has been heard and records have also been perused. 8. The learned Counsel for petitioner averred that the application for restoration of the application filed before the Land Reforms Officer was barried by limitation and therefore, the application for resumption cannot be restored. 9. The learned Counsel for respondent urged that the application was filed with medical certificate and the learned Land Reforms Officer should have restored the application. 10. Perusal of the order of Land Reforms Officer, Ghumarwin show that no plausible reason for dismissing the application has been recorded. As a matter of fact the order of the Land Reforms Officer lacks in all material particulars. It does not state when the application I was dismissed and when restoration/application was filed. This order thus has been rightly set aside by the Collector and Commissioner. The resumption application needs to be decided on merits as valuable rights of the parties to property are involved. Therefore the plea of the petitioner that the application was barred by time is rejected. 11. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner acquired proprietary rights of the land by operation of law after coming into force the rules framed under the HP. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. This plea of the petitioner is also not tenable pending the claim of the respondent for resumption of the land held under tenancy. As has been observed, the claim of the respondent for resumption of land held under tenancy needs to be decided on merits and the question of proprietary rights by the petitioner on the land shall also be dealt with simultaneously with the resumption process. In these circumstances the learned Commissioner has rightly remanded the case to the Land Reforms Officer for decision on resumption application. The Land Reforms Officer should complete the process with in a period of three months. In the result the revision petition being devoid of any writ is hereby dismissed. 12. Orders be communicated to the parties and the case file of this Court be consigned to the records room after due completion.