Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 3 (HP)

PARAS RAM v. NIKKA RAM

2007-01-02

RAJWANT SANDHU

body2007
Order This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners under Section 65 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, against he order dated 29.09.2005 passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division in case No. 471/2003, whereby the appeal of the present respondents was accepted and the order dated 26.06.2003 passed by the district Collector was set aside. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the present respondents, Shri Nikka Ram and others filed an application on 06.03.1997 before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade (LRO), Sadar Bilaspur for correction of revenue entries in respect of land comprised in khata/khatauni No. 12/12, khasra No. 62, 95, 141/ 125, measuring 12-13bighas, situated in Mauza Ropa, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur. On 30.03.1997, the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade visited the spot and recorded the statements of the present petitioners and on 23.06.1997 ordered recording of the tenancy of the applicants (Shri Nikka Ram and others) over the suit land owned by the present petitioners. This order was assailed in appeal by the present petitioners before the Collector, Subdivision, Sadar, which was later transferred for adjudication to District Collector, Bilaspur. The learned District Collector, Bilaspur accepted the appeal on 26.06.2003 and set aside the order passed by the Land Reforms Officer and remanded the matter to him for fresh enquiry and decision. He held that the Land Reforms Officer had neither followed the procedure prescribed under law for correction of revenue entries recorded in consecutive jamabandis nor conducted himself in a judicious manner by not providing proper opportunity of being heard to the appellants (present petitioners). Feeling aggrieved by this order of the Collector, dated 26.06.2003, the present respondents filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division who vide order dated 29.09.2005, accepted the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Collector; Bilaspur dated 26.06.2003. Shri Paras Ram and others, aggrieved of the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner dated 29.09.2005, have filed this revision petition before this Court. 3. The record of the case has been seen and Counsel for the parties heard. The learned Counsel for the petitioners again reiterated that the petitioners had never agreed to Shri Nikka Ram and others being recorded as tenants under them over the suit land owned by the petitioners. He stated that no proper service was effected on the petitioners. 3. The record of the case has been seen and Counsel for the parties heard. The learned Counsel for the petitioners again reiterated that the petitioners had never agreed to Shri Nikka Ram and others being recorded as tenants under them over the suit land owned by the petitioners. He stated that no proper service was effected on the petitioners. A perusal of the notice dated 30-05-1997 issued to Shri Paras Ram by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade shows that it was returned by the process server with the remark that Shri Paras Ram was missing since a long time. This notice is available on page 32 of the relevant file. Likewise another notice issued for 02-01-2004 has also been returned back with the remark that Shri Paras Ram was missing since the last many years. This notice is available on page 38 of the file of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade. Also, record shows that no summons had been issued to Smt. Har Dei. It is therefore not understood as to how the statement of Shri Paras Ram with his thumb impression thereupon was recorded by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade on 30-03-1997 which is available on page 13 of his file. All these facts indicate that the present petitioners were not a party to the proceedings before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade and the statement of Shri Paras Ram as recorded by him is doubtful. The order of Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur dated 26.06.2003 mentions that l/4th of produce was claimed as being given by the tenants to the owners but there was nothing in the jamabandis to support this claim of the respondents. The claim made by the respondents that the present petitioners were living with them was also not borne out by the fact that the addresses given in the petition before the learned Divisional Commissioner were different from their own addresses. Smt. Nagru had died in the course of the proceedings. The application was filed for bringing her LRs on the record but this was not decided. The learned Counsel stressed that the order of the District Collector dated 26-06-2003 setting aside the orders of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade allowing application for correction of revenue entries in respect of the suit land and recording the tenancy of the applicants (Shri Nikka Ram and others) should be upheld. 4. The learned Counsel stressed that the order of the District Collector dated 26-06-2003 setting aside the orders of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade allowing application for correction of revenue entries in respect of the suit land and recording the tenancy of the applicants (Shri Nikka Ram and others) should be upheld. 4. The learned Counsel for the respondents argued that on 06.03.1997 the present respondents had filed their applications for correction of revenue entries in respect of suit land. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade visited the village on 30.07.1997 and the present petitioners had given their statement that they had no objection to Shri Nikka Ram and other being recorded as tenants on the suit land. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade/Land Reforms Officer had proceeded as per the prescribed procedure for correction [of revenue entries and his order was legal and in accordance with the position on the spot. He further stated that heirs of Smt. Nagru were Smt. Har Dei and Shri Paras Ram, who had inherited her estate. There was no need therefore for bringing any other LR on the record. The learned District Collectors order passed on 26.06.2003 was therefore in order and the same required no interference. 5. Having perused the record and weighed the arguments of Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that indeed service had not been effected properly on Shri Paras Ram or Smt. Hr Dei in the course of the proceedings before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade/Land Reforms officer. Besides, the claim of the present respondents that the present petitioners had consented to Shri Nikka Ram and others being recorded as tenants on the land owned by them does not appear to be believable in the light of the subsequent appeal filed by these persons before the District Collector and now in revision before the Financial Commissioner. Since service was not effected properly on Shri Paras Ram or Smt. Har Dei some doubt is cast on the statement recorded by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade in the village during his visit there on 30.03.1997. Statement if any should have been recorded in the Court after issue of proper summons to the owners. Since service was not effected properly on Shri Paras Ram or Smt. Har Dei some doubt is cast on the statement recorded by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade in the village during his visit there on 30.03.1997. Statement if any should have been recorded in the Court after issue of proper summons to the owners. The whole matter requires further investigation and therefore the order of the learned Divisional Commissioner dated 29-09-2005 upholding the order of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade/ Land Reforms Officer allowing correction of revenue entries vide his order dated 23-06-1997 is set aside and the order of the District Collector dated 26-06-2003, is upheld. 6. Announced in the open Court today on 02-01-2007. 7. The record of the Courts below may be returned. The file may consigned to the record room after due completion. Order accordingly.