Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 223 (HP)

SATYA DEVI v. NIKKA RAM

2005-07-05

A.R.BASU

body2005
ORDER Dr. A.R. Basu, EC. (Appeals).—This appeal under Section 14 of H.P. Land Revenue Act has been filed by Smt. Satya Devi, appellant against an order dated 19.12.2001 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner has set-aside an order of the Collector, Sub-Division, Ghumarwin dated 25.6.2001. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the present respondents were co-owners in land bearing khasra Nos. 2105, 2109 and 2119 measuring 22-8 Bighas situated at Mohal Lehari Sarel, Tehsil Ghumarwin, Distt. Bilaspur. Sh. Sher Singh, the present respondent No. 2, filed an application for partition of the said land before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade Ghumarwin, who sanctioned the mode of partition on 5.6.1999 and accordingly the instrument of partition was also prepared on 17.8.1999. Thereafter, Sh. Sher Singh sold 2 biswas of land to present petitioner. Mutation No. 1809 was accordingly entered by the patwari which was sanctioned by the Assistant Collector Ilnd Grade on 10.1.2001. Aggrieved against the same, the present respondent No.l, Sh. Nikka Ram, filed an appeal before the Collector, Sub-Division Ghumarwin on the ground that a civil suit was pending between the parties in which an injunction had been granted by the learned Sub-Judge Ghumarwin, despite which the mutation had been sanctioned. The learned Collector dismissed appeal on 25.6.2001 holding that sufficient opportunity was provided by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade to Sh. Nikka Ram to produce a copy of the injunction granted by the learned Sub-Judge, Ghumarwin despite which he could not produce the same. The learned Collector further held that the mutation was rightly attested on the basis of a sale deed executed as the share of present respondent No. 2 and that the record can always be brought in conformity of the order passed by the Civil Court. Aggrieved against this order, Sh. Nikka Ram filed an appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner exercising the powers of Commissioner on the grounds as previously set forth before the Collector. The Additional Deputy Commissioner accepted the appeal on 19.12.2001 and remanded the matter back to the Assistant Collector IInd Grade Ghumarwin holding that the revenue Courts should wait for the outcome of the matter from the Civil Court. Against this order, Smt. Satya Devi, petitioner, has filed the present appeal before us. 3. The records of the Courts below were called for and the arguments advanced by the Counsel for the parties were heard. Against this order, Smt. Satya Devi, petitioner, has filed the present appeal before us. 3. The records of the Courts below were called for and the arguments advanced by the Counsel for the parties were heard. Shri N.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that as per the proviso (i) of Section 14 of H.P. Land Revenue Act against an original order confirmed on the first appeal, no further appeal lies and hence the appeal filed by the present respondent No. 1 before the Commissioner was not maintainable. He further argued that the plea of the respondent No. 1 that the mutation could not have been attested due to a status quo order of the Civil Court, was wrong as the legal course in such an eventuality would have been to file a contempt proceeding and not to have challenged the same before the revenue officers. 4. Shri Baldev Singh, the learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that when a status quo order is in force, the Assistant Collector IInd Grade could not have attested the mutation. According to him in case the mutation is not cancelled, Smt. Satya Devi can sell the land. 5. Having heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both the parties and perusing the record, an important aspect in the case which requires consideration is whether the Additional Deputy Commissioner exercising the powers of Commissioner could have entertained the appeal filed by Sh. Nikka Ram before him. In this regard, it is worthwhile to revert to the relevant provisions of Section 14 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act under which the appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector IInd Grade dated 10.1.2001 was preferred by Shri Nikka Ram before the Collector, Ghumarwin. As per said provision:— Section.—14 (Appeals).—Save as otherwise provided by this Act an appeal shall lie from original or appellate order of a Revenue Officer as follows:— (a) to the Collector when the order is made by an Assistant Collector of either grade; (b) to the Commissioner when the order is made by a Collector; (c) to the Financial Commissioner when the order is made by a Commissioner. Provided that:— (i) when an original order is confirmed on first appeal a further appeal shall not lie; (ii) when any such order is modified or reversed on appeal by the Collector, the order made by the Commissioner on further appeal, if any, to him shall be final. 6. It has been very clearly laid down that if an original order is confirmed on the first appeal, as is the case in the present matter, no further appeals lies. 7. Besides, there was no illegality in the order dated 25.6.2001 passed by the learned Collector, Ghumarwin wherein she had held that a mutation matter neither creates nor extinguishes any rights and it is only an evidence to update the revenue records which can always he brought in conformity with the order of Civil Court. In the present matter, it is revealed by a bare perusal of the mutation No. 1809 that opportunities to produce an order granting stay on attestation of the same were granted to Shri Nikka Ram on 4.3.2000 and again on 12.10.2000 after which the mutation was sanctioned 10.1.2001. Shri Nikka Ram, however, could not produce the alleged stay order. It is a settled law that any order passed by a Civil Court shall prevail and shall be given effect to in the revenue records as and when passed. A mutation is only a mode of updating of revenue records. Keeping in view the existing position, the mutation cannot be kept pending in anticipation of a subsequent turn of events. More so the stay order could not be produced by the said Nikka Ram despite opportunities. 8. For the reasons discussed hereinabove, the appeal is accepted. The order dated 19.12.2001 passed by the Commissioner in appeal No. 19/2001 is set aside. The order of the Collector Ghumarwin dated 25.6.2001 passed in appeal No. 22/2 of 2001 is upheld. 9. Announced in the open Court today on 5th July, 2005. 10. Case file of this Court be consigned to the record room after due completion. Appeal accepted.