Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2132 (HP)

SHRI KRISHAN SINGH v. HAMINDER LAL

2016-09-30

NARINDER CHAUHAN

body2016
ORDER : 1. This revision petition has been preferred under section 17 of the H.P Land Revenue Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the order dated 10.6.2010 in Review Appeal No.200/2005, whereby the Ld. Divisional Commissioner, Shimla has remanded the case back to the Ld. Settlement Collector, Shimla after setting aside the order dated 20.05.2005, of the Ld. Settlement Collector, Shimla in case no. 1/2003/56/2004 2. Brief facts of the revision petition are that the petitioner had filed an application dated 15.1.2002, before the Settlement Collector, Shimla, for correction of revenue entries qua land bearing khasra No. 1298/102/4/89 (old), measuring area 0 biswas (new khasra Nos.316,317 and 318 measuring 0-02-26 hectares) situated in Mohal Mehli, Tehsil Shimla (Rural) District Shimla, which was partly allowed by the Ld. Settlement Collector, Shimla vide order dated 20.05.2005, passed in case No. 1/2003/56/2004. Ld. Settlement Collector also disposed of case No.37/2004 of Harnam Singh and case No.67/1 of 2004 of Smt. Sita Devi, with his order dated 10.6 2010 as a common issues was involved. Feeling aggrieved with the said order, the present petitioner filed an appeal before the Id. Commissioner, Shimla Division, mainly against the finding given by the Ld. Collector for recording the name of respondent in the column of ownership with respect to the land comprised in khewat No.71, Khatauni No.90/1, Khasra No.313/2 and 316/1 measuring area 0-00-16 hectares. The Ld. Commissioner, Shimla Division, vide his order dated 10.6.2010 passed in revenue Appeal No.200/2005, remanded the matter to the Settlement Collector, Shimla with the following directions:- "that the boundaries of the plots may be established strictly as per the dimensions in the documents of ownership and the map of the Town and Country Planning Department and any other documents and to decide the case in accordance with law after giving proper hearing to the parties on facts and law as also on the issue of jurisdiction and maintainability. The Collector may requisition the assistance of the Town and Country Planning department for the purpose." 3. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner while none appeared for respondents, despite the knowledge of date of arguments Ld. Counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the grounds of revision petition argued that only a limited claim was filed before the Ld. Commissioner, Shimla Division in appeal but the Ld. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner while none appeared for respondents, despite the knowledge of date of arguments Ld. Counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the grounds of revision petition argued that only a limited claim was filed before the Ld. Commissioner, Shimla Division in appeal but the Ld. Commissioner has not considered the grounds of appeal and has travelled beyond the pleadings. That no question of jurisdiction was involved nor raised by any of the parties during the pleadings but the Ld. Commissioner has directed the Ld. Settlement Collector, to decide the issue of jurisdiction and maintainability. Ld. Counsel urged to set aside the orders of the Ld. Commissioner to that extent. 4. On considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner it is clear that the limited issue qua jurisdiction and maintainability is involved in the present revision petition. Keeping in view the notification No. Rev. B.E(2)-10/2007, dated 27.12.2007, issued by the Revenue Department, it is clear that the Settlement Collector is empowered to adjudicate upon the issues of correction of ? revenue record prepared during the settlement operation, even after the completion of settlement operations. Hence, the revision petition is allowed to that extent and the remand order dated 10.6.2010, of the Ld. Commissioner, Shimla Division is modified to the extent that the Settlement Collector, will not be bound to decide issue of jurisdiction and maintainability, as he is vested with the same. 5. Order be communicated to the parties. The records of the courts below be returned immediately and file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion.