Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 39 (HP)

JAGAT RAM v. UDHAM SINGH

2007-03-06

RAJWANT SANDHU

body2007
ORDER 1. This revision petition has been filed against an order dated 15.2.2006 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the present respondent filed an application for correction of entries in khasra No. 412 measuring 0-01-68 Hacts. situated in village Budhwin, Tehsil Nadaun as per old record. The Settlement Collector got an enquiry conducted by the Tehsildar (Settlement) Hamirpur who recommenced addition/deletion in certain khatas/khasra Nos. The Settlement Collector accordingly ordered correction 3.5.2005. The present petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the Settlement Collector before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi on the grounds that correction was ordered without hearing him and that his land has been wrongly reduced by the Collector while effecting the correction sough by the respondent. The learned Commissioner dismissed the appeal on 15.2.2006. The learned Commissioner held that there was an apparent mistake in the new record, which has been rectified by the Settlement Collector. He further observed that the Collector has conducted the requisite enquiry under Section 18(3) of the H.P. Land Revenue Act through the Revenue Officer concerned who has also heard both the parties and recorded their statements. 3. The present revision petition has been filed on the grounds that the Collector has wrongly relied upon the report of the field agency. It is averred that a false report has been prepared by the field agency behind the back of the petitioner. It has further been averred that the Collector initially passed the order on 3.5.2005 and subsequently reviewed it vide a foot note dated 2.7.2005 and similarly the Commissioner has also issued a corrigendum dated 15.6.2006 without summoning the parties. 4. The record of the court below was called for and examined. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties were also heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the observation of the learned Commissioner in the impugned order dated 15.2.2006 that the petitioner was heard by the Settlement Tehsildar is in incorrect as the only statement available on record of the petitioner is that dated 19.4.2003 purportedly recorded by the field Kanungo and which is unsigned. According to the Id. Counsel, the application for correction had been filed by the present respondent before the Settlement Collector and it was mandatory on the part of the Collector to call for and hear the objections of the affected parties. According to the Id. Counsel, the application for correction had been filed by the present respondent before the Settlement Collector and it was mandatory on the part of the Collector to call for and hear the objections of the affected parties. According to him Shri Jagat Ram, petitioner was never heard either by the Collector or even by the Tehsildar (Settlement) as has been mentioned by the learned Commissioner in his order dated 15.2.2006.The learned counsel further argued that the respondent had no locus standie to file the application for correction as he had purchased the land after the settlement operations in the area were over. He submitted that earlier another application qua the same land had been preferred by one Shri Ashwani Kumar which was disposed off by the Settlement Collector on 23.3.2004 as case No. 35/2004 vide which certain corrections were ordered. The present respondent was one of the parties in the said case but he never assailed the said order before any authority. According to the learned counsel the respondent had purchased 168 sq. mtrs of land in khasra No. 412 after the settlement operations were over but he got it increased to 188 sq. mtrs. The learned counsel contended that been the mutation had been got attested by the respondent in connivance with the -revenue staff whom he has managed to influence as he remained posted in the Revenue. Department as an Assistant Settlement Officer. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that due opportunity of being heard had been granted to the present petitioner and he had been informed to be present on spot by the concerned Tehsildar (Settlement). According to the learned counsel there was an error in calculation of the area of the present respondent and therefore he submitted the application for correction after he bought the land. The Learned counsel further contended that the respondent was within his right to seek correction as and when he noticed the discrepancies/error in calculation of the area, which was bought by him. 6. Having perused the entire record and giving due consideration to the arguments put forth on behalf of both the parties. I find that the present respondent had bought the land comprised in khasra No. 412 measuring 0-01-68 sq. mtrs. and the mutation thereof was attested in his favour on 25.6.1997. 6. Having perused the entire record and giving due consideration to the arguments put forth on behalf of both the parties. I find that the present respondent had bought the land comprised in khasra No. 412 measuring 0-01-68 sq. mtrs. and the mutation thereof was attested in his favour on 25.6.1997. It has not been disputed on behalf of the respondent that the land was bought after the settlement operations were over in the area. It is on record that he preferred the application for correction on 30.03.2001 much after the settlement operations had come to an end. It has also not been disputed that correction qua the same land had earlier been carried out in case No. 35/2004 decided by the Collector (Settlement) on 23.3.2004. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to explain as to how the area measuring 168 sq. mtrs. which was bought by the respondent bought could be increased to 188 sq. mtrs. It seems that the respondent has _ managed to get an increase in his area by resorting to seeking corrections before the Settlement Officer which can not be legally sustained. He is clearly entitled to only 168 sq. mtrs. Of land which he has bought and cannot be considered entitled to 188 sq. mtres. as has been ordered by the Settlement Collector. Besides the respondent has concealed that correction of the same area had earlier been ordered to the Settlement Collector on 23.3.2004 and he never challenged the said order before any authority. I also find that the Settlement Collector did not afford any opportunity to the present petitioner and merely relied on the report of the field agency. His action of not hearing the affected parties is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice which is also unsustainable in the eyes of law. The learned Commissioner has filed to appreciate the facts of the case and has wrongly observed that the petitioner had been granted an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, he has also failed in the exercise of jurisdiction vested in him under law. 7. The learned Commissioner has filed to appreciate the facts of the case and has wrongly observed that the petitioner had been granted an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, he has also failed in the exercise of jurisdiction vested in him under law. 7. I, therefore, feel that his is a fit case where I must invoke my revisional powers and I accordingly accept the revision petition and set aside the orders dated 3.5.2005 in case No. 306/2005 passed by the Settlement Collector, Kangra at Dharamsala and also the subsequent correction carried out in the said order on 12.7.2005 as well as the order dated 15.2.2006 passed in appeal No. 218/05 by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. I also hereby set aside mutation No. 105 dated 31.3.2006 in pursuance to the order dated 3.5.2005 passed by the Settlement Collector. 8. Announced in the open court today on 6.3.2007 the record of the Courts below be returned and the case file of this Court be consigned to the courts room after due completion.