MOHAN LAL Vs. SOHAN LAL BAHL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Shri Mohan Lal son of Shri Ishar Dass has come in a petition under-section 13/16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, against the order, dated 24-2-1984 passed by Shri L.D. Gupta, Additional Collector in case No. 253 of 1983 whereby his appeal against the order of Tehsildar passed on 12-10-1983 in case No. 210/CG/82 was rejected.

(2.) The petitioner claims that an application for correction of khasra girdawari was filed by Shri C.L. Nijhawan who claims himself as attorney of respondent No. I Shri Sohan Lal Bahl. The correction of entries was sought for the year 1978-79 in respect of khasra number 298 situated at Kohlapur Road, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi. Thereafter on the basis of an order dated 21-5-1981 passed on this application by the Revenue Assistant an entry was made in favour of respondent SohanLal Bahl deleting the name of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter went in appeal before Shri H.A. Arfi, Additional Collector who set aside the order of the Revenue Assistant and remanded the case to him to be disposed of in accordance with law. The petitioner says that the Tehsildar, Delhi took cognizance of the matter instead of the Revenue Assistant and he passed order on 12-10-1983 in favour of respondent No. 1. The subsequent appeal by the petitioner against that order was dismissed on 24-2-1984. The petitioner has now come up before me with this petition against that order.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Shri C.L. Nijhawan who claimed to hold the power of attorney had no locus standi in the matter and therefore his application for correction of khasra girdawari could not have been considered in the first instance. Secondly, he argued that the direction of the Additional Collector Shri H.A. Arfi was flouted in as much as the Revenue Assistant instead of dealing with the case himself passed it on to the Tehsildar. The learned counsel argued that the lower appellate court in the impugned order has wrongly assumed that the Tehsildar exercises the powers of the Assistant Collector First Grade and was competent to dispose of the case. The learned counsel also sought to make out that the lower appellate court showed prejudice in passing the impugned order because it questioned the authority of his predecessor and in this context went so far as to state in the impugned order that the order of Shri H.A. Arfi, Additional Collector remanding the case to the Revenue Assistant was contrary to the provisions of the Act. It was asserted by the learned counsel that the lower appellate court wrongly assumed that the Revenue Officer was governed by the Civil Procedure Code as the two procedures were separate and distinct. Objection was also taken to the impugned order on the ground that the order of the Tehsildar was passed on conjectures; that the land purchased by respondent No. I was different from the land in dispute; that the question of the title to which the Additional Collector referred was not a matter in dispute before the Revenue officer; that the Additional Collector wrongly concluded that the entries made in favour of the petitioner were collusive, it was also argued that the Tehsildar could not act under-section 36 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act because the matter was governed by paragraph 99 of the Punjab Land Records Manual.