Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 123 (HP)

JAGAT RAM v. KARTAR CHAND

2005-05-09

A.R.BASU

body2005
ORDER Dr. A.R. Basu, F.C.—This revision petition preferred under Section 17 of H.P. Land Revenue Act by the petitioner Shri Jagat Ram, is directed against the order dated 29.1.2003 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Una exercising the powers of Commissioner under the H.P. Land Revenue Act whereby the appeal filed by the present petitioner against the order dated 13.9.2001 of the Assistant Collector Ilnd Grade was accepted and case was remanded to the Assistant Collector with the direction to dispose of the mutation in the light of the observations of the learned Commissioner in his order under challenge. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that on the basis of a registered Will made by one Shri Prema resident of Bhera, Tehsil Amb, the Patwari entered a mutation No. 241 of Village Bhera in respect of the estate of the deceased Prema in favour of the present respondents named S/Sh. Kartar Chand, Ashok Kumar and Shri Dinesh Kumar. The Assistant Collector II Grade, vide an interim order dated 22.7.1999, ordered the mutation to be kept in abeyance till the decision of a civil suit pending between the parties. 3. Against this order of the Assistant Collector II Grade, the present respondents filed revision petition before the Sub-Divisional Collector, Amb on the grounds that the Assistant Collector II Grade could not keep the mutation in abeyance without any cogent reasons as the said mutation was of the succession of the deceased which could not be kept pending especially when there was no time limit fixed for the decision of the civil suit. 4. The Collector after hearing the learned counsel for the present respondents and going through the record of the case, remanded the case to the Assistant Collector II Grade Amb vide order dated 13.9.2001 for disposal in accordance with provisions of law and after ascertaining the status of civil litigation within a period of three months and further ordered to afford due and reasonable opportunity to all the concerned parties. 5. Aggrieved by this order of the Collector Amb dated 13.9.1991, Sh. Jagat Ram, the present petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Com-missioner (Exercising the powers of Commissioner) Una on the grounds that he had not been heard at the time of arguments by the court below and that as per the order of the Collector if the mutation was sanctioned. Jagat Ram, the present petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Com-missioner (Exercising the powers of Commissioner) Una on the grounds that he had not been heard at the time of arguments by the court below and that as per the order of the Collector if the mutation was sanctioned. It would lead to multiplicity of litigation due to pending civil litigation benween the parties. The learned Commissioner (Deputy Commissioner) Una after hearing both the parties and after going through the record of the case held that the mutation proceedings being of a summary in nature could not be kept pending by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade indefinitely or the orders cannot be held in abeyance till the decision of the Civil Court. He set aside the order of the Collector Amb dated 13.9.2001 vide order dated 29.1.2003 and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector II Grade with the direction to dispose of the mutation in the light of observations made by him in the order under challenge. 6. Dis-satisfied with this order of the Commissioner (Deputy Commissioner) Una dated 29.1.2003, the present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner before this Court. 7. The record of the courts below was called for and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both the parties were heard. 8. Shri Ajay Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the mutation which was kept in abeyance vide the impugned order dated 22.7.1999 has finally been rejected by the Assistant Collector II Grade on the 8.12.2000. According to him, it was this order dated 8.12.2000 which the present respondents ought to have challenged. The fact of the rejection was brought to the notice of the learned Collector as well as the learned Commissioner but both the Courts below have gravely erred in ignoring the said fact. Furthermore, he contended that the orders of the Collector dated 13.9.2001 and those of the Commissioner dated 29.1.2003 have no meaning since mutation already stands rejected vide order dated 8.12.2000. He also contended that under the present circumstances any decision of this Court shall not be practically implementable as the basis of the entire dispute which revolved around the decision of the Assistant Collector II Grade dated 22.7.1999 has been put to rest with the rejection of the mutation on 8.12.2000. 9. He also contended that under the present circumstances any decision of this Court shall not be practically implementable as the basis of the entire dispute which revolved around the decision of the Assistant Collector II Grade dated 22.7.1999 has been put to rest with the rejection of the mutation on 8.12.2000. 9. Shri Subhash Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, argued that order of the Assistant Collector II Grade was bad in the eyes of law as the mutation could not have been kept in abeyance. He cited the decision of learned Financial Commissioner Punjab in the matter of "Sewa Singh and others v. Smt. Bhago, (F.C. 1972 P.L.J. Pg. 42)" and Paw v. Kaka Singh etc. (PLJ 1982 Pg. 392)." 10. I have heard the arguments put forth by the learned Counsels of both the parties and perused the entire record. 11. In Sewa Singh and others v. Smt. Bhago, (FC 1972 PLJ Page 42), it has been held that mutation proceedings cannot be stayed indefinitely or orders should not be held in abeyance till the decision of the Civil Court. Thus, it is not for the Revenue Officer dealing with mutation to question the genuineness of Registered Will. It is for the parties concerned to secure the declaration from the competent Court of jurisdiction in respect of respective rights. 12. In Paw v. Kaka Singh etc. (PLJ 1982 Page 329), it has been held that proceedings stayed till decision of appeal against judgment of Civil Court by which a registered will accepted is not tenable. There is no question for keeping revision petition pending. As and when Civil Court pronounces its judgment in appeal. Its orders are to be implemented in revenue records. 13. I agree with the above views. It was, therefore, not proper for the A.C. Grade II to keep the decision pending. However, in the instant case, the important fact which emerges is that whereas in one hand the petitioner agrees that the orders dated 8.12.2000 by which mutation was rejected has attained finality as stated in the grounds of petition, the learned Counsel for the respondents has also stated that the said orders was not challenged by them since they are not aggrieved by the same. 14. 14. In the instant case, an important fact which requires consideration is that on one hand, the petitioner agrees that the order dated 8.12.2000 whereby the mutation was rejected has attained finality as stated in his grounds of petition, the respondents have not challenged it since they were not aggrieved by the same. Hence none of the parties seems to be aggrieved by this order of the Assistant Collector Second Grade dated 8.12.2000, which, in the present case has rendered the earlier orders, which was in fact an interim order, passed by him on 22.7.1999 infructuous. Though there is nothing on record to show that the learned Collector was in the knowledge of the order of Assistant Collector Second Grade dated 8.12.2000, the present petitioner had, in his ground of the appeal filed before the learned Commissioner, submitted this fact. Hence, to have ignored the same was erroneous on the part of the learned Commissioner. While I tend to agree with the learned Counsel for the respondent that the mutation proceeding could not have been kept in abeyance. I also agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order of learned Collector, passed on 13.9.2001 and these passed by the learned Commissioner on 29.1.2003 carry no weight under the present circumstances as the impugned order dated 22.7.1999 become infructuous consequent to the mutation being finally rejected on 8.12.2000. The order of learned Collectors/dated 13.9.2001 as well as the order of learned Commissioner dated 29.1.2003, being meaning less are therefore, not sustainable. It is a settled law that a mutation neither creates nor extinguishes right but it is only a means of recording a lawfully acquired right in the revenue record. The order of the Civil Court shall prevail as and when passed and any entry incorporated prior to passing of such an order is to be updated accordingly when such an order is passed. 15. Hence, on the basis of the facts discussed hereinabove, the revision petition is allowed and the orders of the learned Collector dated 13.9.2001 and those of the learned Commissioner dated 29.1.2003, being technically infructuous are set aside. 16. Announced in the open court today the 24th May, 2005. 17. Case file of this Court be consigned to the record room after due completion. Revision petition allowed.