Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 78 (HP)

GEETA RAM S/O KEWAL RAM v. BHOJ RAJ

2006-03-28

RAJWANT SANDHU

body2006
ORDER By the Court. - This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 114 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act against an order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Shimla in appeal No. 127/98 decided on 29.09.1999. 2. Brief facts of the case are that one Sh. Dhani Ram was recorded as a non-occupancy tenant over land comprised in khata khatoni No. 35/57 kita 59 measuring 254.01 Bighas situated in village Mehando-Bagh, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmour. Shri Geeta Ram the present petitioner was recorded as a non occupancy tenant to place of Shri Dhani Ram in the Jamabandi for the year 1967-68. He later filed an application under Section 11 of the H.P. Abolition of Big Landed Estates Act before the Compensation Officer Pachhad for acquiring ownership rights over the said land. The Compensation Officer allowed the application to the extent of 196.13 bighas on 07.02.1969. The State Government filed an appeal against the order before the District Judge, Sirmour who remanded the matter to the Compensation Officer. The District Compensation Officer, Sirmour then decided the matter on 31.03.1973 allowing Shri Geeta Ram ownership over 33.18 bighas of land only. Sh. Geeta Ram again filed an application on 21.08.1976 before the Land Reforms Officer for conferment of proprietary rights over the entire land measuring 254.01 Bighas which was allowed and the land was mutated vide mutation No. 96 dated 01.04.1977 in favour of Sh. Geeta Ram, Sh. Bhoj Raj and others filed a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division, who transferred the case to the Deputy Commissioner, Sirmour on the grounds that a revision against the order of the Land Reforms Officer does not lie to the Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner, exercising the powers of Collector set aside the mutation order dated 01.04.1977 on 08.06.1998, further directing the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Pachhad to vest 220.03 Bighas in the name of the Government, Sh. Geeta Ram filed an appeal before the Commissioner Shimla Division, who rejected the same on 29.09.1999 and hence the present revision petition has been filed before this Court. 3. The record of the Courts below was called for and examined. The arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties were heard. 4. Geeta Ram filed an appeal before the Commissioner Shimla Division, who rejected the same on 29.09.1999 and hence the present revision petition has been filed before this Court. 3. The record of the Courts below was called for and examined. The arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties were heard. 4. Shri Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the petitioner/Shri Geeta Ram, argued that on coming into force of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. Shri Geeta Ram, who was recorded as a non-occupancy tenant over 254-01 bighas of land in the jamabandi, applied under the Act for the conferment of proprietary rights under Section 104 of the Act ibid. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade passed a detailed order on 01.04.1977 regarding the conferment of proprietary rights in favour of the petitioner. When the matter was heard before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade it was stated on behalf of the State of H.P. that there was no objection to the grant of the proprietary rights and on this basis mutation No. 95 was attested. Several years after the event i.e. in 1996 one Shri Bhoj Raj preferred a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla under Section 114 read with Section 65 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, assailing the order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sirmour on 01.04.1977 regarding the conferment of the proprietary rights in favour of the petitioner. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed for condoning the delay. Without issuing any notice to the State of H.P. and without condoning the delay, the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla sent the file to the Collector to decide the same as the Divisional Commissioner did not have power to hear the revision petition against the order passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade. Shri Bhoj Raj was also advised to file an appeal before the Collector. The Collector allowed the appeal on 08.06.1998 and decided the case against Shri Geeta Ram who then filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla which was dismissed on 29.09.1999. 5. The main point stressed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the course of arguments was that the issue of limitation had been wrongly decided by the Collector in allowing the appeal of Shri Bhoj Raj on 18.06.1998. 5. The main point stressed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the course of arguments was that the issue of limitation had been wrongly decided by the Collector in allowing the appeal of Shri Bhoj Raj on 18.06.1998. The mutation had been decided in favour of the petitioner in 1977. Only the State of H.P. was an affected party and the State would have filed an appeal which it failed to do. During the period of 19 years, which had elapsed since the attestation of the mutation, the nature of the land on the spot and the entries in the revenue record had changed. Shri Geeta Ram had gifted part of the land, for which he had acquired proprietary rights, to his son Shri Netar Mani by way of registered gift deed in 1977 on the basis of which mutation No. 150 had been attested. With the execution of gift deed, attestation of the mutation and entries in the jamabandi a question of title has arisen regarding the suit land and the revenue authorities were not competent to adjudicate on the same. Only the Civil Courts were competent to deal with the matter further. He also cited following case laws in support of his contention that matters settled long ago and particularly, where entries have been incorporated in subsequent jamabandis should not be re-opened by way of revision proceedings before the Financial Commissioner. "Om Prakash v. Amarjit Singh, 1977 SLC 223" wherein it has been held that remedy against the order of the Land Reforms Officer lies in appeal before the Collector and then a second appeal before the Commissioner. "Siri Chand v. Ram Diya, 1978 SLC 372", it has been held that specific remedy in the nature of an appeal provided for. Mere premonition unfair treatment, not based on facts cannot be made a ground for the exercise of jurisdiction in revision. In "Revenue Revision No. 167 of 2004, Om Prakash v. Karan Singh decided on 15.09.2005" by my predecessor held that before entertaining revision petition the Financial Commissioner should satisfy himself that all other remedies have been duly and diligently exhausted by the petitioner and that a prima facie case is made warranting his interference. 6. Shri Bunesh Pal, Advocate, the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 6. Shri Bunesh Pal, Advocate, the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 10 argued that the records before the Compensation Officer clearly show that only around 40 bighas appeared to be in the possession of Shri Geeta Ram as per the situation on the ground at the time when the case was heard by him. Accordingly, the District Compensation Officer had allowed Shri Geeta Ram the ownership of 33-18 bighas of land only. The rest of the area was to revert to the State of H.P. which could then utilize the same as it wished. The remaining land was in the nature of Ghasni, Charand, Khud etc. and the villagers were using the same for grazing of their animals. It was only in the year 1996 when Shri Geeta Ram and his son started interfering with the usage of the area in question by the local villagers that they came to learn of the change in ownership effected through the order passed by the Land Reforms Officer under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. It was also argued that the State was not effectively represented before the Land Reforms Officer in 1977 since only the local Kanungo had stated that there was no objection to the grant of the proprietary rights to Shri Geeta Ram. A Kanungo can not represent the State in such matters. In fact, when the Compensation Officer had decided the matter allowing Shri Geeta Ram the ownership of 33-18 bighas of land only. Shri Geeta Rams right over the balance area ended and the entries of non-occupancy tenant in his favour had to be deleted from the revenue record. Merely due to the negligence of the Revenue Officers in failing to correct the record. Shri Geeta Ram could not be allowed to take advantage of the fraud perpetrated on the State through statement of the Kanungo and the action of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade confering of proprietary rights under Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 in favour of a person who had no right whatsoever on this area after the order of the District Compensation Officer, Sirmour issued on 31.03.1973. In fact the Assistant Collector 1st Grade issued orders regarding the entire area of 254-01 bighas since Shri Gita Ram concealed the factum of already having acquired ownership rights over 33-18 bighas. In fact the Assistant Collector 1st Grade issued orders regarding the entire area of 254-01 bighas since Shri Gita Ram concealed the factum of already having acquired ownership rights over 33-18 bighas. It is clear therefore that Shri Geeta Ram kept the Revenue Officer in the dark about the status of the land for which he was seeking proprietary rights. Moreover, the bartandars of the village could not be denied the traditional rights of grazing of their cattle and easement etc. over the land in question. The issue of limitation could not be raised by the petitioner as he had kept quiet over the years regarding mutation of land in 1997 and it was only when the villagers got to know about the same that they could take action in the matter. 7. Shri B.S. Thakur, D.A. (Revenue) for the State also argued that Shri Geeta Ram could not take advantage of the fraud perpetrated on the State of H.P. through the continuance of the revenue entries regarding his being the non-occupancy tenant of the land even after the order of the Compensation Officer of 1973. This area had vested with the State of H.P. No evidence has been produced at any stage to indicate that Shri Geeta Ram had paid rent as tenant to the State. There was no evidence of the tenancy therefore and the mutation regarding conferment of proprietary rights on Shri Geeta Ram has been effected in a fraudulent manner. He cited case law : (1) "Smt. Bhotu and another v. Sarjes Singh and another, ILR 1977 6 (HP Series), page 792", (2)"Bara Singh v. Tarlok Singh and others, PLJ1974 Pages 151", (3) "Baghail Singh and others v. Thakur Singh, PLJ 1974 (FC) page 154, (4) "Smt. Bhagwan Kaur v. Bhura Singh and others, PLJ 1973 FC page 79", (50) "Mohar Lai v. EC, PLJ 1968 page 255", (6) "Atma Ram and others v. Shamshar Singh and others, SLJ 1982 (FC) page 35" to support his contention that even cases that have been decided long years ago can be reopened if Revenue Officers commit material irregularity in dealing with revenue matters or in attesting mutations. The delay in filing the case, however long, cannot fetter the discretion of the Collector or the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) if some material irregularity comes to notice and it needs to be corrected in the interest of justice. The delay in filing the case, however long, cannot fetter the discretion of the Collector or the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) if some material irregularity comes to notice and it needs to be corrected in the interest of justice. In this case the record shows that the District Compensation Officer had through order dated 31.3.1973 allowed Shri Geeta Ram the ownership of only 33.18 bighas of land on the basis of the possession of Shri Geeta Ram on the spot. Had Shri Geeta Ram felt aggrieved by this order he could have appealed against the same but he failed to do so. The presumption therefore is inescapable that he was not in possession of more than this area. Later however, taking advantage of the failure of the Revenue Officers at the field level to effect corrections in the revenue entries that stood in his favour on the balance area inspite of the order of the District Compensation Officer of 1973. Shri Geeta Ram, filed an application of ownership of proprietary rights on 240-14 bighas under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 and the Assistant Collector 1st Grade attested the mutation accordingly. Clearly Shri Geeta Ram perpetrated a fraud. He was well aware that the District Compensation Officer had recognized his possession on the land measuring 33.18 bighas only and granted him ownership of the same. He was in no way entitled to the balance area and therefore the application under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 was based on entries in the revenue record that had no legitimacy after the order of the District Compensation Officer, Sirmour dated 31.03.1973. 8. On the other hand, the rights of the Bartandars have been affected through the order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade dated 01.04.1977. The right of the Bartandars cannot be hostage to the negligence of the Revenue Officers in failing to make corrections in the revenue record after the order of the District Compensation Officer which was passed in 1973 and the lack of care exercised by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade in attesting the mutation in 1977. This is a fit case where the revisional powers of the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) have to be exercised to ensure justice to the Bartandars. This is a fit case where the revisional powers of the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) have to be exercised to ensure justice to the Bartandars. The learned Collector, Sirmour has rightly allowed the plea regarding condoning delay on the part of the applicant Shri Bhoj Raj and others when they filed an appeal before him. The Divisional Commissioner has recorded a detailed order in the matter and in view of narration above we see no interfere with the same. Therefore, the revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Record of the lower Courts be returned and the case file of this Court be consigned to the record room after due completion. Announced in the open Court today the 28th March, 2006. Revision dismissed.