Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 357 (HP)

LT. COL. SUDHIR JUNG v. JIJU RAM

2002-12-30

S.S.NEGI

body2002
ORDER S.S. Negi, IAS, FC. - This revision petition under Section 114(3) read with Section 65 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms 1 Act, 1972 preferred by learned counsel Sudhir Jung petitioner is 1 directed against the order dated 7.7.1999 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra in revision No. 272/98 whereby the revision filed by the present petitioner against the order of the Collector dated 28.10.1998 was dismissed. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the present petitioners vide application dated 8.7.1993 alongwith two copies of LR-V forms duly attested by the Patwari applied to the Land Reforms Officer, Dharamshala for resumption of land comprised in Khata No. 130 min. Khautoni No. 299, Khasra Nos. 632, 634, measuring 0-71-64 Hects. Situated in Mohal Upperali Dar, Tehsil Dharamshala Distt. Kangra, which was under the non-occupancy terms of the present respondent Shri Jiju son of Dalpat son of Jangi resident of upperali Dar, Tehsil Dharamshala, Distt. Kangra. The present petitioner in his application of resumption had stated that he was an ex-service man and had retired from the Indian Army on 21.8.1992 and accordingly sought resumption by submitting LR-V to the Land Reforms Officer, Dharamshala. 3. The Land Reforms Officer, Dharamshala after hearing both the parties and going through the record allowed to resume an area of 0-35-82 Hect. i.e. 50% in favour of the present petitioner vide order dated 16.11.1993. 4. Against this order of the Land Reforms Officer, Dharamshala, the present petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector Kangra on the grounds that the learned Land Reforms Officer below had failed to interpret the provisions of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act under Section 34(i) (d) (dd) and that he (present petitioner) had applied for resumption of the total land after the retirement from the Indian Army vide LR-V form and that he had joined armed forces on 21.8.1968 and tenancy was created by him within a period of six months before becoming member of armed forces. 5. After hearing both the parties and having gone through the case, the Collector observed that the present petitioner had filed the appeal after 1373 days after the expiry of limitation and hence dismissed the appeal vide order dated 28.10.1998 as barred by limitation. 6. 5. After hearing both the parties and having gone through the case, the Collector observed that the present petitioner had filed the appeal after 1373 days after the expiry of limitation and hence dismissed the appeal vide order dated 28.10.1998 as barred by limitation. 6. Aggrieved of this order of the Collector dated 28.10.1998, the present petitioner Shri Sudhir Jung filed revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra on the grounds that he had no knowledge about the order dated 16.11.1993 appealed against and he only .came to know on 15.6.1997 and after obtaining the copy of impugned order he filed the appeal on 19.9.1997, therefore the Collector should have decided the case on merits instead of dismissing the appeal on limitation only. 7. The learned Divisional Commissioner after hearing both the parties and perusal of records of the case dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 7.7.1999. 8. Dis-satisfied with this order of the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra dated 7.7.1999, the petitioner Shri Sudhir Jung has preferred the present revision petition before this Court. 9. The matter has been heard and the relevant records have also been perused. 10. The learned Counsel for petitioner has argued that though there was delay in filing the appeal before the Collector, but such delay was not intentional and the counsel for the petitioner did not inform the petitioner about the fate of the case. The learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner has served the Indian Armed Forces in the difficult conditions in India and abroad in true tradition of the Indian Armed Forces and he could not have gained in any manner in delaying the j matter advertently affecting his interest adversely. He accordingly prayed that matter be heard on merits atleast. 11. The learned Counsel for respondent has opposed the submissions made for the petitioner stating that the delay is deliberate on the part of petitioner and his counsel as the impugned order was announced in the presence of his Counsel and at this stage, there is no occasion to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts. 12. 11. The learned Counsel for respondent has opposed the submissions made for the petitioner stating that the delay is deliberate on the part of petitioner and his counsel as the impugned order was announced in the presence of his Counsel and at this stage, there is no occasion to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts. 12. After considering the submissions made on behalf of both sides, it emerges that there has been a delay of about four years in filing appeal before the Collector by the petitioner, but the plea of the petitioner that he was not informed by his counsel about the impugned order in time affords credence as the petitioner would not have gained anything by delaying the filing of appeal except at the peril of his own interest. Therefore, it appears that the petitioner did not acquire the knowledge of the order in time, nor his counsel informed and advised him the legal consequences of such a lapse. In these circumstances, the Collector should have condoned the delay and decided the matter on merits. The Commissioner also did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal on the point of limitation, though in view of the aforesaid of circumstances, he should have condoned the delay and ordered to hear the matter on merits. In view of the facts and circumstances, the impugned orders are set aside and the case is remanded to Collector for hearing the case on merits. The revision petition is accordingly accepted. 13. Orders be communicated to the parties and case file of this Court be consigned to the record room after due completion.