Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 524 (HP)

BIDHI CHAND v. STATE OF H. P.

2010-03-17

KULDIP SINGH

body2010
JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, J.(Oral)-This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 3.12.2008 passed by Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Himachal Pradesh in revision petition No. 148 of 2002. 2. The grievance of the petitioner as projected by the learned counsel is that the land has not been allotted to him as per the mode of partition. The value of the trees has also not been assessed properly. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 has submitted that the petition under Article 227 is not maintainable. 3. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Indora in the order dated 23.2.1998 has considered the case of the parties. The petitioner was heard by the Assistant Collector. It has been recorded in the order dated 23.2.1998 that both the parties agreed to the partition papers prepared. The only objection raised by the petitioner before the Assistant Collector was that value of the trees assessed by Horticulture Officer, Indora was not proper and he requested to get the valuation of the trees done by District Horticulture Officer. This request of the petitioner was rejected by the Assistant Collector and he ordered that respondent No.2 shall pay Rs. 9385/- to petitioner within 30 days and approved the partition. 4. The petitioner filed appeal against the order dated 23.2.1998 before the Sub DivisionalCollector, Nurpur. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Sub Divisional Collector has decided the appeal behind the back of the petitioner. The perusal of the order dated 27.7.1999 passed by Sub Divisional Collector indicates that the arguments of the learned counsel of the petitioner Bidhi Chand were considered and only thereafter the order dated 27.7.1999 was passed and the appeal was rejected. The petitioner thereafter challenged the order dated 27.7.1999 before the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra exercising the powers of Commissioner under the H.P. Land Revenue Act by way of revision. The Deputy Commissioner, Kangra also dismissed the revision on 29.7.2002. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another revision before the Financial Commissioner which was also rejected on 3.12.2008. 5. All the four revenue authorities right from the Assistant Collector upto Financial Commissioner have decided the matter against the petitioner. The petitioner had grievance with respect to only valuation of trees and no more as is clear from the order dated 23.2.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another revision before the Financial Commissioner which was also rejected on 3.12.2008. 5. All the four revenue authorities right from the Assistant Collector upto Financial Commissioner have decided the matter against the petitioner. The petitioner had grievance with respect to only valuation of trees and no more as is clear from the order dated 23.2.1998. It has not been pointed out on what grounds valuation of trees assessed by Horticulture Officer, Indora is wrong. The Sub Divisional Collector, Deputy Commissioner and Financial Commissioner have decided against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to make out any case of error of jurisdiction. The findings of fact recorded by the authorities below cannot be interfered in a petition under Article 227, unless it is shown that such findings are based upon no evidence or the findings are perverse, but no such case has been made out. There is no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. CMP No. 959 of 2009 Infructuous in view of disposal of the main petition.