Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 125 (HP)

Kahan Singh v. Radha Singh

2014-02-25

NARINDER CHAUHAN

body2014
ORDER : Narinder Chauhan, Financial Commissioner These revision petitions have arisen on the recommendations made by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, who in case No. 147/08 and 148/08, vide order dated 3.4.2012, has accepted the Revision Petitions filed by the petitioners, The basis of the recommendation made by the Ld. Divisional Commissioner, are that Shri Tulender Singh, had expired and his legal heirs (Respondents) ought to have been impleaded as necessary parties, and that the order of Sub Divisional Collector dated 10.1.2008, being against a dead person is a nullity in the eyes of law. Ld. Divisional Commissioner also noted that revenue Courts below have passed cryptic orders and have not elaborated the reasons as to why the application of the petitioner for correction of revenue entries is not maintainable. Without recording any findings on merit, Id. Commissioner, was of the view that the case ought to be heard again and therefore, has made the recommendation. 2. The brief facts of the case are that A.C. 1st Grade, vide his orders dated 4.10.2007, did not entertain the correction application filed by the petitioners, wherein the petitioners contended that they have purchased the land in question during the year 1980-81, for a consideration of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 12,550/- respectively, it is the case of the petitioners that entries in the Khasra Girdawri, are wrong and incorrect, and the same need to be corrected. That notwithstanding the sale, no mutation has been entered by the revenue authorities. That the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents refused to register any sale transaction before the registration authorities. The land for which correction application has been submitted by Shri Kahan Singh (Case No. 84/2012) bears khata khatoni No. 114/ 103, khasra Nos. 2396/2151/7, measuring 4050 sqr. mlrs. and Shri Budhi Singh (Case No. 9272012) with respect to khata-khatoni No. 114/103, khasra Nos. 2396/2151/1, measuring 3249 sq. mtrs., khasra No. 2396/2151/2, measuring 3960 sq.rntrs. and khasra. No. 2396/2151/5 measuring 3354 sq. mtrs. out of original khata/khatauni Nos. 114min/206/103/195. Although in khasra No. 2396/2151, 2181, 2182, 2189 (kita 4), the area shown is 50577 sq. mtrs., correction is sought only on part of land. The application for correction have not been entertained by the A.C. 1st Grade, as entries in the jamabandi and khasra girdawri prepared for 1989-90 to 2003-04 continue in the name of the owner, Shri Tulinder Singh S/o Shri Laxman Sen (predecessor-in- interest of the respondents). mtrs., correction is sought only on part of land. The application for correction have not been entertained by the A.C. 1st Grade, as entries in the jamabandi and khasra girdawri prepared for 1989-90 to 2003-04 continue in the name of the owner, Shri Tulinder Singh S/o Shri Laxman Sen (predecessor-in- interest of the respondents). 3. The petitioners feeling aggrieved with the orders of the A.C. 1st Grade, preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Collector, who vide his order dated 10.1.2008, in Appeal No. 4/08 and 6/08, upheld the orders of A.C. 1st Grade, on the ground that there are no provisions under the Land Revenue Act, 1954, which empower the A.C. 1st Grade, to correct revenue entries in the record of rights or periodical record Ld. Sub Divisional Collector, was in agreement with the orders of A.C. 1st Grade, that the application for correction of revenue entries by way of khasra girdawri, followed by a mutation, is not in consonance with the provision of Section 35 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. 4. Arguments were heard, the petitioners reiterated their submission that they have purchased the land in question during 1980-81, and therefore, khasra girdawri and jamabandi should correctly reflect their possession and ownership. Apart from hearing tho petitioners in person, an opportunity was also given to the petitioners to submit their written submissions through their Advocate, which written brief has not been received. Advocate, Shri J.S. Chandel, for the respondent, has submitted that the respondents are owners in possession of land and being legal heirs they have inherited the land from deceased, Sh. Tulender Singh, S/o Shri Laxman Singh. That the orders of A.C. 1st Grade, and Sub Divisional Collector, are correct and after the death of the husband/father of the respondent, there is an attempt to grab the land, as the respondents occasionally stay in Sundernagar, and furthermore, that if such applications are allowed to be maintainable and entertained, it would open the flood gates and that vide Section 12 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act even the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), H.P. has not passed any standing orders authorising such corrections. 5. 5. In support, Advocate for respondents Shri J.S. Chandel, has cited Ludar Marti v. Devki Nandan and others, 1987, S.L.J. 776, wherein Financial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, held that entries in the record of rights or in a periodical records made in accordance with law and rules are presumed to be true, unless contrary is proved, "if any person considers himself aggrieved as to any right of which he is in possession by an entry in a record of rights or in a periodical record, the proper course for him is to institute a suit in the civil Court." Reliance has also been placed on State of H.P. v. Ved Prakash, 1992, SLC 367, wherein Id. F.C. (Appeals) has held that entries incorporated in the jamabandi cannot be corrected unless these happens to be of clerical nature and proper remedy for correction of revenue entries incorporated in the jamabandi is before the civil Court. Similarly, in Jagtar Singh v. Swaran Singh, 1979 SLJ 89, Financial Commissioner (Punjab), held that:- "entry in khasra girdawri, which has been incorporated in the latest and subsequent jamabandi cannot be changed by Revenue Officers, in summary proceedings under the provisions of Punjab Land Revenue Act, and in such cases the only course open to an aggrieved party is to seek relief from the competent civil Court". 6. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to agree with the orders of A.C. 1st Grade and Sub Divisional Collector, Sundernagar. The recommendation of the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, which are primarily based on the fact that the orders of the revenue Courts are non-speaking and that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents having expired before passing of the orders by the Sub Divisional Collector, are not tenable. The reasons are that the entire case of the petitioners is based on their submissions that they have purchased the land in the year 1980-81. There is no registration deed to prove any sale deed, further under Section 17(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, which Section lists out documents where registration is compulsory, immovable property of over Rs. 100, in value is necessary to be registered. There is no registration deed to prove any sale deed, further under Section 17(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, which Section lists out documents where registration is compulsory, immovable property of over Rs. 100, in value is necessary to be registered. Section 17(b) of Registration Act, 1908, reads as follow: - 17(b)"Other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare assign, limit or extinguish, whether in person or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property". Therefore, Section 17(b) of the Indian Registration Act, establishes the necessity for the registration with regard to certain classes of documents defined in that Section and is made effective by Section 49, which provides that any document so required to be registered, shall not unless it has been so registered, affect any immovable property comprised therein or be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered. 7. In the instant case all the revenue records, indicate the respondents and their predecessor-in-interest to be the owner in possession, of such land. Under Section 45 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954, presumption respondents and their predecessor-in-interest to be the owner in possession, of truth is attached to such entries in the record of rights and periodical record. Even khasra girdawri or harvest inspection report for the period from 1988-89 to 2004, continues to be in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of respondents, it can also not be understood, as to why the petitioner made no efforts w.e.f. 1980-81 (i.e. date of alleged purchase of land) till 2005, to have the revenue entries corrected in their favour. Seeking correction of revenue entries after a period of 25 years, in itself, casts a shadow of doubt. It is clear that the petitioners have merely put up a claim, in order to first seek possession by procedure of khasra girdawari, and hope that such entries subsequently fructify into a mutation. Such a claim is being attempted to be made without acquiring any right or interest which would not necessitate an entry to be made in a register of mutation by the Patwari, as required under Section 35 and 36 of Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act. Such a claim is being attempted to be made without acquiring any right or interest which would not necessitate an entry to be made in a register of mutation by the Patwari, as required under Section 35 and 36 of Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act. The instant case is clearly covered by the ratio of Sawan Singh v. Mehar Singh and another, 1956 (LLT) 35. In that decision it was held that there is no such thing as a mutation with respect to entries in the khasra girdawari, as it does not form part of the record of rights and there is no obligation under Section 34 and 35 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, which corresponds to Section 35 and 36 respectively of H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954, to correct such entries. Taking into consideration the fact that in this particular case the girdawari, jamabandi entries continue in the name of the respondents, and under Section 45 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954, presumption of truth is attached to such entries, the claim of the petitioners has no legal basis. 8. Therefore, the recommendations of Ld. Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, cannot be accepted. Land owners should not, in all fairness, be forced to seek a remedy in the Court of competent jurisdiction before various civil Courts/revenue Courts, based on such frivolous applications or bald claims put forth by third parties when there is not an iota of evidence to establish any of the claim being put forth by any such third party. 9. I am in agreement with the order of A.C. 1st Grade and Sub Divisional Collector, and decline to accept the recommendations of the Ld. Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. Both the revision petitions are dismissed. This order will dispose of other Revision Petitions No. 85/2012 (Chandu Lal v. Radha Singh and another), 86/2012 (Dharam Singh v. Radha Singh and another), 87/ 2012 (Balak Ram v. Radha Singh and another), 88/2012 (Rattan Singh v. Radha Singh and another), 89/2012 (Pritam Singh v. Radha Singh and another), 90/ 2012 (Bhim Singh v. Radha Singh and another), 91/2012 (Yoginder Singh v. Radha Singh and another) and 93/2012 (Lekh Ram v. Radha Singh and another), since the facts and issues in these cases are also similar. 10. Orders be communicated to the parties. 10. Orders be communicated to the parties. The records of the Courts below be returned and the case file of this Court be consigned to the record room after due completion.