Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2070 (HP)

CHAMAN LAL v. GENERAL PUBLIC

2016-09-23

NARINDER CHAUHAN

body2016
ORDER : 1. This revision petitions has been recommended by the Ld. Commissioner, Mandi Division, vide his order dated 171.11.2015, passed in case No.152/2014, whereby the matter has been recommended for setting aside the order dated 25.2.2014 passed by the Sub-Divisional Collector, Kullu and order dated 16.1.2012 passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Kullu and for remanding the matter to the AC 1st Grade, Bhuntar to decide the case afresh after a proper inquiry or as he may deem fit. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the present petitioner made an application to the AC 1st Grade, Kullu, District Kullu for entry or his caste in the revenue record. After processing the case, the AC 1st Grade, Kullu rejected the application vide his order dated 16.1.2012. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid order of AC 1st Grade, the present petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Collector, Kullu who after hearing the parties dismissed the same vide orders dated 25.2.2014, against which the present petitioner filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Mandi Division who has recommended the same to this Court vide his order dated 17.11.2015 passed in case No.152/2014, observing as follows:- "After hearing both the counsels of the parties and after perusal of the record, it is found that the Sub-Divisional Collector Kullu has rejected the appeal on the ground that the appellant has failed to produce a copy of certificates of Bona fide Himachali whereas the same is found placed on the record of the Sub-Divisional Collector. It means that the Collector has failed to appreciate the copy of the Certificate and has casually rejected the appeal. After perusal of the statement recorded by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade it is also proved that caste of the appellant is reported as "Bhat" but the Sub-Divisional Collector Kullu also has not given any weightage to the same." 3. I have heard the petitioner who appeared in person and have gone through the recommendations of the Ld. Commissioner. After perusal of the statement recorded by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade it is also proved that caste of the appellant is reported as "Bhat" but the Sub-Divisional Collector Kullu also has not given any weightage to the same." 3. I have heard the petitioner who appeared in person and have gone through the recommendations of the Ld. Commissioner. Mandi Division and the record of the Sub-Divisional Collector, Kullu, H.P. From the perusal of the order dated 25.2.2014,passed by the Sub-Divisional Collector, Kullu in case No. and orders dated 16.1.2012 passed by the AC 1st Grade, Kullu, in case No.3-CT/2011, it is clear that the present petitioner has failed to produce sufficient documents on the basis of which it can safely be concluded that the petitioner belongs "Bhaf" caste. The Ld. Commissioner has wrongly pointed out that the Ld. Sub-Divisional Collector, Kullu has rejected the appeal of the present petitioner for want of bona fide certificate only, whereas from the perusal of orders of Ld. Sub-Divisional Collector, Kullu it is clear that Ld. Collector has even not made any mention about "bona-fide certificate" in the concluding portion of his orders. Moreover, from the perusal of the bona fide certificate issued in favour of the petitioner it is clear that he is not a permanent resident of Himachal Pradesh and is residing in the State for a period of 25 years or more which does not entitle him to seek a caste certificate or entry of caste in revenue record i.e. Shajra Nasab. Further perusal of the record suggests that the Ld Collector, Sub-Division Kullu has provided sufficient opportunities to the present petitioner to produce some relevant documents in support of his claim, but the present petitioner in his statement recorded on 17.2.2014, (page 7 of the file of Ld. Sub-Divisional Collector) has refused lo Produce any such document. Further from of page 29 of the file of Sub-Divisional Collector, which appears to be a photo copy of Caste Certificate issued on 10.1.1998, but not legible, it is not clear as to which authority has issued that certificate. In fact caste certificates are issued by authorities specified in chapter 28 of the H.P. Land Records Manual (as amended from time to time). In fact caste certificates are issued by authorities specified in chapter 28 of the H.P. Land Records Manual (as amended from time to time). Hence, both the trial as well as the appellate, courts have rightly concluded that the present petitioner has failed to produce sufficient material on record on the basis of which it can be safely concluded that he belongs to "Bhat" caste and as such there appears no illegality or irregularity in the orders dated 25.2.2014, passed by the Sub-Divisional Collector, Kullu, in case 2/2012 and orders dated 16.1.2012 passed by the AC 1st Grde, Kullu, in case No.3. CT/2011, which require any interference by invoking revisional jurisdiction as recommended by the Ld. Commissioner, Mandi Division. However, the petitioner is still at liberty to Procure a caste certificate or a bona fide Himachali certificate from the competent authority of area to which he permanently belongs. Revenue authorities will perforce place reliance only on entries in Shajra Nasab Bhat, being a declared (sic-declared) 'Other Backward Class' in Himachal, perforce concrete and substantive proo based on records is needed before the designated issuing such a certificate. 4. In view of the above observations, recommendations made by the Id Commissioner, Mandi, Division are hereby declined and the present revision petition is accordingly dismissed being devoid of any merit. 5. Announced in open court today the 23rd September, 2016 at Mandi. The records of the courts below be returned and file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion.