Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 265 (HP)

DHARAMU v. SAUNKI RAM, KANGRA

2005-08-02

A.R.BASU

body2005
ORDER Dr. A.R. Basu, F.C. (A), H.P., Shimla.—This revision petition has been filed under Section 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 against an order dated 14.3.2002 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chamba exercising the powers of Commissioner, Chamba in appeal No. 44-3/XIII/A/2000. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the present petitioner filed an application before the Assistant Collector Idt Grade Bharmaur claiming correction in Khasra Girdawari pertaining to khata No. 11/11, Kita 22, measuring 11-11 Bighas situated in Mohal Malkota, Tehsil Bharmaur. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade allowed the application on 3.6.1992 directing that in khata No. 11/11, the possession of petitioner may be recorded over 9-0 Bighas of land, likewise, he may also be recorded to be in possession over khasra Nos. 447 and 2380 measuring 1-4 Bighas in Khata No. 12/12. He further ordered that the petitioner may also be recorded as a non-occupancy tenant over khasra Nos. 1182, 2137 and 2520, measuring 1-7 Bighas in khata No. 9/9 for which a separate, application has been moved by him. The present respondents filed an appeal against the said order before the Collector, Sub-Division, Bharmaur who set aside the order of the Assistant Collector 1st 4.8.1995. 3. This order was assailed in appeal by the petitioner before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division who accepted the appeal and remanded the matter to the Collector for deciding it afresh. Consequently, the Collector heard and decided the matter afresh on 8.6.1998 whereby he again set aside the order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade Bharmaur dated 3.6.1992. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the same before the Deputy Commissioner Chamba exercising the powers of Commissioner who dismissed the same vide the impugned order dated 14.3.2002. 4. The record of Courts below has been called for and examined and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties have been heard. Written arguments have also been filed on behalf of the respondents which have also been perused and placed on record. 5. Shri Tarlok Chauhan the learned Counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the grounds taken in the revision petition and argued that the learned Commissioner has not appreciated the facts that the Collector below has not passed his orders in consonance with the observations of the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra who had remanded the matter to him. 5. Shri Tarlok Chauhan the learned Counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the grounds taken in the revision petition and argued that the learned Commissioner has not appreciated the facts that the Collector below has not passed his orders in consonance with the observations of the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra who had remanded the matter to him. He stressed that the petitioners has been paying rent to the respondents and a receipt thereof is available on record which establishes the relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondents and the petitioner respectively. He further argued that the Commissioner has wrongly held that the appeal filed by the respondents was within time. He contended that the correction in the record of rights has been ordered by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade after conducting inquiry to this effect. 6. Shri Sanjay Jaswal, the learned Counsel for respondents argued that the parties are co-sharers in the land. According to him, it is a settled law that possession of one co-sharer is the possession of all co-sharers. According to him, the learned Commissioner has rightly held that where entries have been made in the jamabandi, these could not have been changed without filing a civil suit before a competent Court of law. According to him the receipt on the basis of which the entries have been ordered to be corrected, does not mention the land regarding which the receipt has been made. 7. Having heard the arguments put forth and perusing the record, it is observed that in the application filed by the present petitioner before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade correction of Khasra Girdawari pertaining to only khata No. 11/11 has been sought. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade has ordered correction of khata No. 9/9 as well as 12/12. He has mentioned that the petitioner has moved a separate application for khata No. 9/9 wherein he ordered the petitioner to be recorded as a non-occupancy tenant. It is pertinent that no such application is available on record. Besides, the relationship between a tenant and a landlord is to be adjudicated upon by a Land Reforms Officer under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 and not by an Assistant Collector 1st Grade under the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954. It is pertinent that no such application is available on record. Besides, the relationship between a tenant and a landlord is to be adjudicated upon by a Land Reforms Officer under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 and not by an Assistant Collector 1st Grade under the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954. I am also of the opinion that the entries which were existing in the record of rights pertaining to khata No. 11/11 and 12/ 12 over which both the parties were co-owners, could not have been ordered to be recorded in possession of one of the co-owners except when a family agreement or mutual partition has taken place to this effect. It is a settled law that possession of one co-owner is the possession of all co-owners and that the entries once incorporated in a jamabandi cannot be altered unless an order to this effect has been passed by a competent Court of law. 8. The contention raised by in the revision petition and those addressed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner have already been adjudicated upon by the learned Commissioner who has based his findings upon facts. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to convince me of any material irregularity or failure of jurisdiction on the part of the Commissioner. The order of the learned Commissioner dated 14.03.2002 having been passed well within jurisdiction, no interference in revision is required. 9. The revision petition is, therefore dismissed. 10. Announced in the open Court today the 2nd August, 2005. 11. The record of lower Court be returned and case file of this Court be consigned to the record room after due completion. Revision Petition Dismissed.