TEJ SHAN BHASKAR Vs. SUMAN JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition u/s 17 of the HP Land Revenue Act against the order of the Commissioner, Shimla Division, dated 2.1.2009 appeal No. 96/2007.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the Settlement Officer, Shimla had allowed the application of respondent no. 1 for correction of revenue entries vide orders dated 7.2.2005 and accordingly corrections had been made in the revenue records. The petitioner had thereupon preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Shimla Division which was dismissed; hence this revision petition.

(3.) THE matter was argued by learned counsel of the petitioner and respondent no. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the application of the respondent No. 1 to the Settlement Officer was allowed within 26 days, which is unusual. The present petitioner was not called and was thus not heard, but his land was reduced. Learned counsel stated that in her application, the respondent no. 1 had alleged that her land had been reduced but the consequence of her correction application was that the petitioner's land got reduced. Learned counsel read from the Commissioner's report and stated that the Commissioner has not given any reasoning for her order. According to learned counsel, before reducing the petitioner's land, the Settlement Officer has to give valid reasoning. According to learned counsel, the land of those whose land was already in excess has not been touched/ 384 reduced.