Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2210 (HP)

JOGINDER SINGH v. NAGESHWAR DUTT

2016-10-13

NARINDER CHAUHAN

body2016
ORDER : 1. This revision petition under section 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been preferred against the order dated 12.12.2013 passed by the Commissioner Mandi Division in case No.207/2007, dismissing there by the appeal of the present petitioner against the orders dated 12.2.2007 passed by the Ld. Collector, Settlement Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Shri Nageshwar Dutt. the present respondent filed an application dated 5.2.2000, before the Settlement Collector, 'Kangra at Dharamshala for correction of dimensions of Khasra No 996 (of Bandobast jadid) measuring 1-14-19 bighas situated in Mohal Dharajbanu/9, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi. The Settlement Collector, Kangra rejected the application, vide his order dated 25.5.2001, on the ground that there is no logic for the correction at such a belated stage. Feeling aggrieved with this order, the present respondent challenged the sample before the Commissioner, Mandi Division who after hearing the parties accepted the appeal, vide his order dated 2.3.2005, and remanded the case to the Settlement Collector, Kangra, with the direction to decide the case as per observations made by him in the orders. On remand, the Settlement Collector accepted the correction application vide his order dated 12.2.2007 and this time the present petitioner challenged the same by filing an appeal (No.207/2007) before the Ld. Commissioner, Mandi Division on the grounds that the impugned order is both against the law and facts, that the court below has not taken into consideration the observations made by the Ld. Commissioner in remand orders; that the respondent is stopped by his acts and conduct in as much as the demarcation of the land in question was conducted by the Tehsildar Sundernagar. After providing an opportunity of being heard to the parties and having perused the record of the court below, the Ld. Commissioner, Mandi, dismissed the appeal vide his order dated 12.12.2013, observing as follows:- "....The Tehsildar Sundernagar has conducted detailed inquiry and has recorded the statements of both the parties. The Collector below has passed his order on the report of the Tehsildar after hearing the parties. Since the report of Tehsildar Sundernagar is comprehensive, therefore, there was no need to conduct fresh inquiry. Moreover, the appellant has been heard both by the Tehsildar and Collector Settlement. The Collector below has passed his order on the report of the Tehsildar after hearing the parties. Since the report of Tehsildar Sundernagar is comprehensive, therefore, there was no need to conduct fresh inquiry. Moreover, the appellant has been heard both by the Tehsildar and Collector Settlement. The correction is based on spot position and wrong has been undone by the impugned order. So, the pleas taken by the appellant in the grounds of appeal are not tenable. The mistakes can not be allowed to perpetuate/survive on one plea or the other." 3. Still dissatisfied, the present petitioner has filed the present revision petition against the order dated 12.12.2013 passed by the Ld. Commissioner, Mandi Division. The main grounds of the revision are that the orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner are against the facts and the law; that the Settlement Collector has no jurisdiction to entertain the application for correction of revenue entry when the record was transferred to Mohal after its completion; that the Ld. Commissioner has wrongly spelled out the appeal of the petitioner as revision and it is wrong to observe That a prayer was made before him for recommending the case for acceptance to this Court. 4. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the parties. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the application for correction was made after lapse of a period of about 45 years of the settlement proceedings in the area and thereafter consolidation operations have also taken place and as per instructions dated 15.6.2015 issued by the Court, the Collector Settlement could not entertain and order correction in such cases. He further argued that in compliance to the direction of Civil Court, the Tehsildar, Sundernagar had conducted a "demarcation of the land in dispute and the report of the demarcation was accepted by the respondent and in such a situation how they can subsequently filed an application for correction of the land in question. 5. In reply, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent argued that on detection of the mistake by the Settlement Collector, during the preparation of record of rights, the same is to be corrected by the Settlement Collector. 5. In reply, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent argued that on detection of the mistake by the Settlement Collector, during the preparation of record of rights, the same is to be corrected by the Settlement Collector. He further added that the Settlement Collector has relied upon the report dated 28th July, 2001, submitted by the Tehsildar, Sundernagar, in Para 3 of which it has clearly been stated that the position at spot is the same as it was recorded in the previous settlement, and has rightly ordered correction vide order dated 28.8.2001, in the record of rights which has further been upheld by the Ld. Commissioner, vide his orders dated 12 12.2013, passed in appeal No. 207/2007. Lastly, the Ld. Counsel argued that there in illegality/irregularity in the order passed by the courts below and as such the present revision petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties and have gone through the record of the courts below. The main ground of the petitioner is qua maintainability of correction application to the Settlement Collector that too when the record was already consigned to Mohal side and subsequently the consolidation operation has also taken place. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this court towards instructions issued by this court vide letter dated 15.06.2015. In this regard; the State Government, vide notification No. Rev. B.E.(2)-19/2007, dated 27.12.2007 has authorised Settlement Collector to adjudicate upon those correction applications in which the corrections have been sought in the record-of-rights prepared during the settlement operation, even after the consignment of record-of-rights to the Mohal side. Keeping in view these notification, this court has already clarified vide letter dated 26.8.2016, that in cases where mistake has been found to have been made during the settlement operation which could not have been rectified in the subsequent consolidation operations. In such a circumstance, the Settlement Collectors are competent to adjudicate upon the matters of corrections. In view of above observations, the Settlement Collector was/is competent to adjudicate the matter in hand and there is no illegality/irregularity in the order passed by the Settlement Collector to this extent. 7. In such a circumstance, the Settlement Collectors are competent to adjudicate upon the matters of corrections. In view of above observations, the Settlement Collector was/is competent to adjudicate the matter in hand and there is no illegality/irregularity in the order passed by the Settlement Collector to this extent. 7. In so far as the issue relating to merits of the case is concerned, the petitioner has failed to point out any irregularity/illegality in the order passed by the Ld Settlement Collector Moreover, from the perusal of the record, it is clear that the correction has been allowed to be made after seeking spot position report from the field agencies and the same has been made keeping in view the factual spot position as well as position depicted in the old record. Other grounds shown in the revision petition are not considerable in view of the observations made here-in-above. Hence, there is no such irregularity/illegality apparent in the orders dated 12.2.2007, passed by the Settlement Collector, which have further been upheld by the Ld. Commissioner. Mandi Division vide his orders dated 12.12.2013, passed in case No.207/2007, which requires any interference by invoking of revisional powers and as such order of the both the courts below are hereby upheld. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 8. Order be communicated to parties. The record of the courts below be returned and the file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion.