Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 51 (HP)

SHIV CHARAN DASS v. OM PARKASH

2006-03-14

RAJWANT SANDHU

body2006
ORDER This revision petition has been field under Section 65 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 against an order of the Land Reforms Officer Nurpur, Distt. Kangra dated 22.2.1976 with a prayer to set aside the same order. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the owners of the land in dispute, who are now represented by the respondents, filed an application for resumption of land from the tenants under section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act 1972 for self cultivation before the Land reforms Officer Nurpur who allowed the same vide the impugned order dated 22.2.1976. 3. The grounds taken in the revision petition are that the order of the Land Reforms Officer is totally arbitrary and without application of mind. It has been averred that at the time of giving the land as per the shares for self cultivation the area has not been computed correctly as per the shares of the Land owners. According to the petitioners, land measuring 1 Kanal 4 Marias was given to them whereas they were entitled to 1 Kanal 9 Marias. Besides no order regarding Khasra No. 626 measuring 0.8 Marias which was reserved for self cultivation has been passed. It has further been averred that there is a well in Khasra No. 495/1 which has been given to the tenants. 4. A perusal of the Revision Petition reveals that the same has been filed after more then 30 years of passing of the impugned orders. Sh. Sanjay Jaswal, the learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that keeping in view the legal infirmity in the orders of the learned Land Reforms Officer, that the Financial Commissioner has powers under section 65 (1) of the Act to; at any time call for the record for the any case pending before, or disposed of by any Revenue Officer or Revenue Court subordinate to him 5. Further, according to the learned counsel as per sub-section (4) of this section ‘if after examining a record called for by him self under sub-section 1 or submitted to him under Sub-Section 3, the Financial Commissioner is of the opinion that it is in expedient to interfere with the proceeding or the order or the decree, he shall pass an order accordingly. 6. The learned counsel has contended that no limitation is attracted in matters as such at hand. 6. The learned counsel has contended that no limitation is attracted in matters as such at hand. He cited the Honble Supreme Court of India in the matters of; (I) "Kanshi Ram and another versus lachhaman (Dead) thr. LRs. and others, 2001 SCC (5) 546", (ii) "Rattan Chand etc. Versus Deputy Commissioner Bilaspur etc. (1974 ILR, Him.) 599" and (iii) "Nar Singh and others V/S State and another (AIR 1967, Pun. 111)". 7. Shri T.S. Chauhan the learned counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioners have failed to assail the impugned orders before the competent authority well in time, and hence they can not be allowed to unsettle a settled matter at such belated stage. According to him the expression, at any time is to be cautiously analyzed. Though the Financial Commissioner has the powers to call for the record of any case pending before or disposed of by a subordinate Revenue Officer of Revenue Court, it is not to be invoked unless this court comes to the conclusion that an illegality has been committed leading to a grave miscarriage of justice. In the present matter, no such illegality has been pointed out either in the grounds of revision or by the learned counsel for the petitioners in his arguments. He contended that the purported irregularities are not such which were not in the knowledge in the petitioners at the time of the passing of the impugned orders or the subsequent attestation of the mutations in furtherance thereof. He prayed that the delay in filing the revision petition is clearly deliberate and on this ground alone the same -deserves dismissal. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the grounds of the revision petition, I am of the opinion that the petitioners can not in this case take advantage of the provision under Section 65 of H.P. tenancy and Land Reforms Act that empowers the Financial Commissioner to take up an application for hearing at "any time" after the act comes into force. Form LR-V was filed before the land Reforms Officer for resumption of land in Khasra No. 495, measuring 4 Kanal 8 Marias, and Khasra No. 626, measuring 0-8 Marias, total 4 Kanals 16 marlas in 1975 and the land Reforms Officer gave his decision in the matter on 22.2.1975. Form LR-V was filed before the land Reforms Officer for resumption of land in Khasra No. 495, measuring 4 Kanal 8 Marias, and Khasra No. 626, measuring 0-8 Marias, total 4 Kanals 16 marlas in 1975 and the land Reforms Officer gave his decision in the matter on 22.2.1975. Mutation to give effect to the decision of the Land Reforms Officer was attested in 1986. If the land owners had a genuine interest in pursuing their case (hey could have challenged the decision of the Land Reforms Officer soon after he gave his decision or even at the stage when the mutation was attested. The petitioners can not plead lack of knowledge. No application for condonation of delay has been filed and raking up this at this stage amount to harassment of tenants by the land owners. The para No. 15 of the cited case; "Kanshi Ram & another versus Lachhman (dead) thr. LR;s & ors., 2001 SCC (5), 4546", is not relevant as this was a case of unauthorized possession. The debtor was afforded relief. The other case law cited by the learned counsel for petitioners are not relevant to this case. If the mutation was not attested correctly in 1986 the same could be challenged under the appropriate provisions of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. To wait for 30 years to challenge the order of Land Reforms Officers and 19 years to challenge the order of mutation points to non seriousness of the petitioners to protect their interest. Besides, the area in question for which a dispute is being raised at this belated stage is only a few Marias. The settled position of 30 years age can not be disturbed at this stage. The revision petition is rejected. 9. The case file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion. Announced in the open court today the 14th March, 2006.