Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 129 (HP)

GURMUKH SINGH v. KARTAR CHAND

2006-05-09

RAJWANT SANDHU

body2006
ORDER 1. This matter has been forwarded to this court under Section 17 (3) of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra who, while adjudicating upon revision petition No. 105/94 has held that opportunity of being heard had not been afforded by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade to the petitioner, while attesting mutation No. 3-07 pertaining to village Lalhari, Tehsil and District Una. 2. The brief facts of the case are that mutation No.3607 was sanctioned by the A.C. IInd Grade, Una on 25-12-1992 on the basis of a registered sale deed No.476 dated 26-9-1989. The present petitioner filed an appeal against this before the Collector, Sub Division, Una who dismissed the same vide an order dated 15-12-1993. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra, who observed that earlier mutation No.3442 regarding the relevant sale deed had been rejected by the Assistant Collector, find Grade on 12-10-1990. No appeal had been preferred against this order and hence a fresh mutation could not have been attested without reviewing the earlier order. He, therefore, has sent the matter to this court for passing of appropriate orders thereupon. 3. The matter has come up for consideration on the recommendation of the learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra today. None of the parties is present despite having knowledge of the matter being fixed for today. Hence, I proceed to adjudicate upon the matter on the basis of the record as made available by the learned Commissioner. 4. It is seen from the order of the learned Divisional Commissioner that he had heard the counsels for both the parties and taken their arguments into account before passing his order dated 19.9.1997. It had then been stressed by the advocate for Shri Gurmukh Singh that execution of sale-deed dated 26.9.1989 was not disputed that for attestation of mutation delivery of possession was a must as directed in para-17.25 of the Land Records Manual. It was further argued that the petitioner was a co-sharer and mutation No.3442 entered on the basis of the sale-deed was rejected by the Assistant Collector, llnd Grade on 11.05.1990 on the basis of objections raised during summary enquiry that a civil suit qua the land was already pending. This order was not appealed against and was therefore final. It was further argued that the petitioner was a co-sharer and mutation No.3442 entered on the basis of the sale-deed was rejected by the Assistant Collector, llnd Grade on 11.05.1990 on the basis of objections raised during summary enquiry that a civil suit qua the land was already pending. This order was not appealed against and was therefore final. The second mutation could not be entered and sanctioned on the basis of the same document and therefore mutation No.3607 had been illegally sanctioned on 26.2.1992, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, and the issues decided earlier could not be reopened. 5. Learned counsel for Shri Kartar Chand had made the point that the sale was complete on the date of registration and the respondent had become co-sharer. The mutation was only entered for updating of the record of rights and collection of land revenue and the petitioner Shri Gurmukh Singh had no status and no injury had been caused to him. 6. The learned Commissioner had concluded that the earlier mutation No.3442 was rejected by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade on the objection that the land already stood mortgaged. Against that order no appeal or revision had been filed and therefore second mutation No.3607 was a gross violation of natural principles of justice and material irregularities had taken place. For these reasons the learned Divisional Commissioner took the view that the order of Assistant Collector IInd Grade dated 25.12.1992 and that of the Collector dismissing the appeal against the same dated 15.12.1993, needed to be set aside. In view of the above and perusal of the record, I am satisfied that this is a case for exercising of revisional powers under Section 17 of the HP. Land Revenue Act. The recommendation made by the learned Divisional Commissioner is accepted and the orders of the Assistant Collector IInd Grade dated 25.12.1992 and of the Collector dated 15.12.1993 regarding attestation of mutation No.3607 are set aside. Announced in the open court today the 9th May, 2006. Record of the lower courts be returned and the case file of this court be consigned to the record room after the due completion.