Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 191 (HP)

SEWAK RAM v. NAND LAL

2006-07-03

RAJWANT SANDHU

body2006
ORDER 1. This revision petition has been filed against an order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi on 31.01.2005 vide which he has allowed the appeal field by the present respondent No.1 against an order of the Sub Divisional Collector, Chachiot. 2.Brief facts of the case are that the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Chachiot attested a mutation No.76, dated 30.7.1975 conferring the proprietary rights upon the respondents of land situated in village Gadhiman Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi. The present respondent No.1 filed an appeal against this before the Sub Divisional Collector on the ground that initially, the mutation had been entered for the entire khata and land measuring 05-02-16 bighas was sanctioned in favour of the occupancy tenants. The Sub Divisional Collector dismissed the appeal on 27.10.1997 holding that the mutation has been challenged after a lapse of 15 years and therefore the appeal is t,ime barred. The respondent No.1 filed a further appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi who allowed the same holding that the mutation was attested behind the back of the present respondent No.1 and also that the mutation sheet had a numbers of cuttings and the area had been reduced from 20.1.05 bighas to 05-02-16 bighas. The present revision petition has now been filed against the said order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 31.1.2005. 3. The record of the case was called for and the counsel for parties heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that one of the petitioners before the learned Commissioner, Shri Chaitru (present respondent No.3) had died on 20th September, 2003 during the pendency of the proceedings. His legal heirs should have been brought on record. Since this had not happened, effectively the learned Divisional Commissioner had passed the order against a dead person and the same should be treated as non est. The appeal before the Divisional Commissioner was filed on 06.07.2003 while Shri Chaitru was proceeded exparte on 24.10.2003 since he died on 20.09.2003. He cited Jagan Nath verses Smt. Ishwari Devi, SLC, 1988 (2), page 273" in this read. 4. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 argued that since the learned Divisional Commissioner passed an order on 31.1.2005 which was favourable to the interest to Shri Chaitru who was one of the occupancy tenants on the area in question the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner was inapplicable. 4. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 argued that since the learned Divisional Commissioner passed an order on 31.1.2005 which was favourable to the interest to Shri Chaitru who was one of the occupancy tenants on the area in question the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner was inapplicable. The mater certainly needed re investigation in view of the reasons recorded by the learned Divisional Commissioner in his order and the same should be upheld 5. Having perused the record and weighed the arguments of the counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that the petitioner has no case. Although the Sub-Divisional Collector did reject the appeal on the ground that the same was time barred, yet justice must be seen to be done especially when the present respondents claim to be the tenants on the whole area of 20.05-01 bighas. The remand order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner will facilitate re examination of the matter by the Sub-Divisional Collector and decision on merits. This revision petition is rejected. 6. Announced in the open court today the 03.07.2006. The record of the courts below be returned and the case file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion.