NIRMALA DEVI Vs. MANMOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under section 14 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act is directed against the orders dated 28.7.2007 of the Commissioner, Shimla division passed in appeal No. 29/2005 whereby the appeal of the present respondents has been accepted and orders of the Collector, Arki sub -division has been set aside.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the Assistant Collector, Grade -I, Arki Tehsil, on the application of present respondents and other co -shares, decided the partition case by devising mode of partition on 24.5.2000 and instrument of partition was also framed. Consequently mutation No. 2375 was entered and was attested on 27.11.2001 by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade. This order of the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade was challenged in appeal. Before the Collector, Arki sub -division who dismissed the appeal on 29.7.2003 holding that since an appeal against the partition case had already been set aside and therefore the appeal against the mutation of the partition did not lie. An appeal was filed against this order of the Collector before the Commissioner, Shimla division who vide orders dated 7.4.2004 passed in revenue appeal No. 129/2003 accepted the appeal and remanded the case back to the Collector, Arki sub -division to decide the appeal afresh taking into consideration the points in appeal and to pass detailed orders. The Collector heard the parties again and accepted the appeal of the present petitioners and set aside the impugned orders passed on mutation No. 2375 dated 27.11.2001 vide orders dated 18.1.2005. This order of the Collector was challenged in appeal before the Commissioner by the present respondents. The Commissioner accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the Collector. It is against this order of the Commissioner that the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant Smt. Nirmla Devi.

(3.) IN reply, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that partition proceedings had not been challenged and the appellant has not challenged either the mode of partition or even the instrument of partition. He further contended that the partition mutation order clearly states that the appellant was not present at the time of order of petition. The learned counsel also pointed out that the matter was raised in the civil court when came to be dismissed on 17.7.2008 on the grounds that the proceedings of Revenue/Courts can not be challenged in civil courts. He also submitted the copy of judgment passed by Civil Judge, (Jr. Division), Arki, District Solan dated 17.7.2008 alongwith copies of jamabandis for the year 2003 -2004 pertaining to khata/khataunis No. 21/22, 22/ 23 and 23/24 of mauza Maan, Tehsil Arki. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel placed reliance on case Shri Jindu versus Smt. Neel Kamal and Others [SLC 2003(3), page 496] decided by this court.