MANDIR THAKUR DAWARA Vs. JASWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question which arises in this appeal is whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit or not.

(2.) THE facts necessary for disposal of this case are that the appellant here-in-after referred to as the plaintiff filed a suit claiming that the plaintiff never inducted the defendants as tenants on the suit land and the revenue entries showing the defendant to be in possession as tenants are illegal and fictitious. THE plaintiff also laid challenge to the mutation No. 4647 dated 5.5.1983 whereby the proprietary rights were conferred upon the defendants. THE learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Appeal was filed by the plaintiff and the learned lower Appellate Court relying upon the judgement of this Court in Chuhniya Devi vs. Jindu Ram, 1991(1) Sim.L.C. 223 held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the case and returned the plaint.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY, in the present case, the order on the basis of which mutation was sanctioned was passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade. This order led to the mutation being sanctioned. This Court in Tara Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and considered others, Latest HLJ 2007(HP) 122 the question whether an Assistant Collector 2nd Grade was competent to pass such an order. This Court held that it is only the Assistant Collector 1st Grade who could confer proprietary rights under Section 104 of the H.P.Tenancy and Land Reforms Act and the 2nd Assistant Collector Grade had no jurisdiction to pass such an order.