Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1818 (HP)

JAI PRAKASH v. SHRI ROOP RAM

2015-12-08

NARINDER CHAUHAN

body2015
ORDER : 1. This revision petition under Section 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act), is directed against the order dated 14-02-2011, passed by the Collector, Sub-Division, Arki, in case No. 2/VIII of 11, whereby he has dismissed the appeal of the present petitioner and upheld the order of the A.C. IInd Grade, dated 24-03-2006, passed on mutation no. 3283 vide which the name of present respondent has been inducted as a co-owners along with petitioner and other co-owners. 2. In nutshell, the case is that the A.C. IInd Grade, Arki, vide order dated 24.3.2006, attested mutation no. 3283 inducting thereby the name of respondent (Roop Ram) as a co-owner with other shareholders including present petitioner, qua the land comprised in khata/khatauni 44 to 46/45 to 47, kita-10, area measuring 0-39-16 bighas and khata/khatauni no.68/71, kita-23, area measuring 35-15 hectares, as per jamabandi for the year 2003-04, situated in Mauza Vikrampur, Tehsil Arki, Distt Kangra, H.P. as ¼btknhuke o eqfy;ruke½ because his name was left out in the record of rights being a son of late Shri Sita Ram. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the A.C. IInd Grade dated 24.3.2006, passed on mutation no. 3283, the present petitioner Shri Jai Parkash Pal, filed an appeal before the Collector, Sub-Division, Arki on 25.4.2008, after a lapse of more than 2 years, on the ground that the order was passed behind his back without his consent and knowledge, which came to his knowledge on 29.3.2008, when the certified copy of the impugned order was obtained. Further, it has been contended that the respondent is a stranger to this land and has no right, title and interest over the same. The respondent in connivance with revenue staff has manipulated to enter his name as one of the co-owners with the appellant and other co-owners succeeded in getting the mutation no. 3283 sanctioned/attested in his favour; that the respondent who is more than 50 years old, does not belong to the family of the appellant and had no right to be recorded as joint owners in the revenue record and even the A.C. IInd Grade was not competent to do so. 3283 sanctioned/attested in his favour; that the respondent who is more than 50 years old, does not belong to the family of the appellant and had no right to be recorded as joint owners in the revenue record and even the A.C. IInd Grade was not competent to do so. Further, it has been asserted that it is settled proposition of law that longstanding revenue entries forming part of record of rights cannot be changed by way of mutation proceedings which are summary in nature, the appropriate remedy to the respondent was to agitate the matter in the Civil Court and the Assistant Collector has no authority to order the insertion of his name in the revenue record by way of mutation proceeding. 4. The Ld. Collector, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal vide the impugned order dated 14.2.2011, passed in Appeal no. 2/VIII of 11. Hence, the present revision petition. 5. The petitioner has contented that Shri Sita Ram, died intestate somewhere in 1970 and after his death, the land in dispute was mutated in the name of his three sons Shri Sant lal Pal, Syham lal Pal and Babu Ram in equal share being the sons and natural heirs of late Shri Sita Ram. That thereafter, Shri Sant Lal Pal, one of the son of late Shri Sita Ram, also died in the year 1976 and his share, was mutated in favour of the appellant and his sister and mother in equal share, and they continuously remained recorded as owner in possession of ?rd share of the suit land right from 1976 to 2006, when the A.C. IInd Grade illegally and unlawfully added the name of present respondent in the record of right and mutated th share of the deceased late Shri Sita Ram in his favour thereby reducing his share of from ? to th That the Ld. Collector below has committed the error by not taking into consideration the above mentioned facts amongst others and as such, his order is bad in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the petitioner who has almost reiterated the grounds of the revision. Apart from his pleadings, Ld. 6. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the petitioner who has almost reiterated the grounds of the revision. Apart from his pleadings, Ld. counsel asserted that Shri Sita Ram, expired in the year 1970, was succeeded by his three sons namely, Shri Sant Lal Pal Shyam Lal and Babu Ram; that in the year 1976, one of the sons, Shri Sant Lal Pal, also died whose property was inherited by the petitioner amongst others. That in the year 2006, after more than 36 years, one Shri Roop Ram claimed to be the fourth son of late Shri Sita Ram, and the A.C. IInd Grade inserted his name in the record of rights which has reduced the share of the petitioner from ?rd to th. Ld. counsel pointed out that the fourth son has claimed his right after more than 36 year whereas review could be sought within three months. 7. On the other hand, in written arguments, filed on behalf of the respondent, it has been submitted that after the death of father of the respondent, the name of respondent, Roop Ram could not be in corporated in the revenue record by mistake; that the A.C. IInd Grade, has incorporated the name of the respondent in the revenue record vide mutation no. 3283 attested on 24.3.2006, after a proper inquiry regarding the relationship between deceased Shri Sita Ram and the present respondent in the presence of members of the concerned family as well as area lamberdar Shri Mansa Ram, with a view to rectify the mistake. Therefore, the Ld. counsel asserted that the Assistant Collector, Arki has not committed any illegality or irregularity by sanctioning the mutation in favour of the present respondent and long standing mistake was rectified by giving th share to the respondent and his other co-owners for which they were/are legally entitles. Lastly, it has been asserted that in the present revision petition, the petitioner has not disputed the relation with the respondent whereas in his appeal before the Collector in para no.3, the petitioner has stated that the respondent is a stranger to the land in dispute, which apparently reveals that the petitioner is trying to mislead the court and has not come with clean hands, and his sole aim is to involve the respondent in unnecessary litigation. Therefore, the Ld. Therefore, the Ld. counsel for the respondent argued that the respondent may not be deprived of his ancestral land and the present revision may be dismissed. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the Ld. counsels for both the parties and have also carefully gone through the record of the courts below. On perusal of copy of mutation no. 3283 available in the file of the Collector, attested by the A.C. IInd Grade, on 24.3.2006, it transpires that the A.C. IInd Grade, has attested the mutation ¼btknhuke o eqfy;ruke½ by inserting Shri Roop Ram, respondent as co-owner with other shareholder qua the land in question, in the open court in the presence of Shri Shyam Lal, one of the brother of the respondent and the Lamberdar concerned, who have identified the respondent as being a son of late Shri Sita Ram. Further this mutation has been attested on the basis of report No. 54, dated 6.2.2006 of the Tehsildar, Arki. Further on perusal of copies of Shajra Nasab for the year 2003-04, Himachali Certificate issued by the Tehsildar Arki on 16.12.1997 and Parivar Register, attached with the written arguments by the counsel for the respondents, also proves that Shri Roop Ram, present respondent is a son of late Shri Sita Ram. A bare perusal of the contents of the order passed on mutation no. 3283, also indicates that the A.C. IInd Grade, had thoroughly inquired into the paternity of Shri Roop Ram, before attesting the mutation on 24.3.2006, in the presence of general public as well as a brother of respondent as well as the Lamberdar of the area, whose signatures are available on the mutation, the Assistant Collector has merely rectified the mistake apparent on the face of record that too, on the basis of facts admitted and proved. Hence, as such, the orders passed by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade appears to be in accordance with law. 9. In view of the above discussions, I find no force in the present revision petition, devoid of any merits, is accordingly, dismissed. 10. Announced in the open court today the 8th December, 2015 The records of the courts below be returned and the file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion.