Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 256 (HP)

KRISHNA DEVI v. MATHRU

2005-07-27

A.R.BASU

body2005
ORDER Dr. A.R. Basu, F.C. (A), H.P., Shimla.—This is a revision petition has been recommended by the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division who has held that a mutation pertaining to Sale of immovable property in favour of the petitioner was wrongly rejected by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Solan and has further recommended that directions may be issued to the Assistant Collector IInd Grade to allow the petitioner one more opportunity to produce documentary evidence, if any, in support of her contentions and to decide the mutation afresh after thorough inquiry. The record of the Courts below has also been forwarded alongwith the recommendation. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner bought land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 38/45, khasra No. 194/165/156/117/115/4 measuring 0-2 Biswas, situated in Mauza Nadoh, Tehsil and District Solan, from the respondent vide Sale Deed No. 123 dated 20.2.1998. Mutation No. 492 of the land so bought was entered which the Assistant Collector IInd Grade Solan rejected on 25.5.1998 on the ground that the petitioner does not fall within the definition of Landless as defined under Section 118(2) (h) of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. 3. The petitioner filed an appeal against the same before the Sub-Divisional Collector Solan who dismissed the appeal on 30.11.1998. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Shimla Division who has forwarded the same to this Court with the aforesaidrecommendation. The record of the Courts below has been perused and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for petitioner have been heard. 4. Shri R.S. Panwar, learned Counsel for petitioner argued that the Assistant Collector IInd Grade was wrong in holding that the petitioner did not fall within the definition of landless. He contended that the Courts below have misinterpreted the provisions of law. He further contended that the learned Commissioner has rightly held that as per Section 11(2) (1) (dd) of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, the petitioner was not prohibited to purchase the land. He prayed that the recommendations made by the learned Commissioner may be accepted. 5. The respondent who was present in person agreed with the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 6. He prayed that the recommendations made by the learned Commissioner may be accepted. 5. The respondent who was present in person agreed with the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 6. Having perused the record and considering the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the learned Commissioner, Shimla has rightly referred to the provisions of Section 118 (2)(l)(dd) of the Act ibid. As per the provision, as has been quoted by the learned Commissioner : "a person who , on commencement of this Act worked and continues to work or gain in an estate situated in Himachal Pradesh, for the construction of a dwelling house, shop, or commercial establishment in a municipal area, subject to the condition that the land to be transferred does not\ exceed:— (i) in case of dwelling house-500 square meters; and (ii) in the case of shop or commercial establishment-300 Square Mtrs." 7. Thus, the Courts below have not correctly exercised the jurisdiction vested in them under law. As such, the recommendations made by the learned Commissioner, Shimla Division are accepted. The order dated 30.11.1998 passed by the Collector, Sub-Division Solan as well as that dated 25.5.1998 passed on mutation No. 492 by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Solan with the directions to consider the mutation afresh in view of the relevant provisions of law as quoted hereinabove after giving due opportunity to all concerned parties. 8. Announced in the open Court today the 27th July, 2005 at Solan. 9. Order be communicated to the respondent and case file of this Court be consigned to the record room after due completion. Revision disposed of.