HIRDA RAM Vs. MESHO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Revision petition filed against the orders of the learned Divisional Commissioner dated 14 -1 -1980, dismissing the appeal of the present petitioner.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 23 -3 -1978 late Sh. Mohi Ram father of the present petitioner made an application on which Smt. Mesho respondent had also affixed her thumb impression stating that late Sh. Chandu, the husband of the respondent, who was the tenant of the land, in question, had during his life time relinquished the possession in his favour, but the land had continued to be shown in the possession of late Sh. Chandu in the revenue record ; that it was necessary to correct the relevant entries and that his submission was supported by the widow of late Sh. Chandu. He further prayed in the application that the revenue entries may be corrected according after recording their statements. The Assistant Collector II Grade recorded the statement of Smt. Mesho, who stated that she was not in a position to cultivate the land after the death of her husband and, as such, had voluntarily relinquished the possession of the land in favour of late Sh. Mohi Ram but her name was wrongly continuing in the revenue record for the last 3 -4 years. She prayed that the entries in the revenue record may be made in the name of Sh. Mohi Ram. On the basis of the joint application of late Sh. Mohi Ram and Smt. Mesho widow of Sh. Chandu and the statement of Smt. Mesho, the Assistant Collector II Grade, ,Renuka, passed an order on the same date that the entries be corrected showing the cultivation in the name of late Sh. Mohi Ram s/o Shei. Khayali Ram, resident of Dal Palara.

(3.) On 19 -6 -1978 Smt. Mesho made an application under Section 16 of the H. P. Land Revenue Act in the Court of the Assistant Collector 11 Grade requesting him to review his orders dated 23 -3 -1978 on the ground that Sh. Mohi Ram asked the petitioner to accompany him to the Tehsil Office, where he would pay her Rs. 5,000 as the purchase money of her land. Since the petitioner was financially very tight, she agreed to the suggestion and accompanied the respondent. Further, the respondent asked her to affix her thumb impression on an application and to admit every thing which would be asked inside the court. The petitioner submitted to his suggestions without knowing the evil designs of the respondent and that her statement was obtained by mis -representing facts to her. She further mentioned that since the respondent had not paid the settled purchase money, she had not handed over the possession of the land to the respondent and prayed that the land may continue to be shown in her possession in the revenue papers. The Assistant Collector 11 Grade, referred the case to the Collector (Sub - Divisional Officer), exercising the powers of the Collector for necessary orders since he was not competent to review his own orders.