RATTANI DEVI Vs. RAJINDER PAL

JUDGEMENT

(2.) The Settlement Collector vide his order dated 25 -5 -1979 in appeal No. 30/80 preferred by Smt. Rattani Devi and Smt. Radha Devi against the order dated 25 -10 -1977 of the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Bharoli came to the conclusion that the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, had exercised the jurisdiction not vested in him under the law and accordingly, the impugned order dated 25 -10 -77 should be set aside by the Financial Commissioner, in exercise of his revisional powers under Section 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. Although originally an appeal was preferred by the petitioners. Smt. Rattani Devi and Smt. Radha Devi, the Settlement Officer treated it as a revision petition due to the delay of more than one year in filing it. He felt that the order of the court below ought to be revised as a material irregularity had been committed and the Assistant Collector IInd Grade had exercised the jurisdiction illegally.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that Smt. Mahanti who was the original owner of the land comprising khata No. 7, khatauni No. 7 measuring 54 kanals 9 marlas situated in village Baroa, Tehsil Dehra, died in September, 1975, She was survived by Smt. Rattani Devi and Smt Radha Devi who by virtue of their being her legal heirs inherited the above noted property. However, the land was recorded in the self cultivating possession of Smt, Mahanti upto Rabi, 1977 even though she had died in September, 1975. On 7th October, 1977, Balak Ram and Rajinder Pal etc. filed an application for the correction of entries of cultivation in their favour on the ground that the land, in question, wm being cultivated by them from the time of their lore -fathers but an entry to that effect had not been made in the Revenue record. This application was contested by the land owners, Smt. Rattani Devi and Smt. Radha Devi. The Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, after holding an enquiry on the spot, decided that the land, in question, should be recorded in favour of S/Shri Balak Ram, Bishan Singh, Joginder Singh and Des Raj sons of Shri Badri in equal share in half the land, question, and S/Shri Rajinder Pal, Deep Kumar and Surinder Pal is of Diwana in equal share in the other half of the land, as non -ccupancy tenants on payment of l/4th grain rent w. e. f. kharif, 1977. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed an appeal, which, however, was treated as a revision by the Settlement Collector who recommended to this court it the impugned order of Assistant Collector IInd Grade be set aside by exercising the powers of revision.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsels for the petitioners as well as the respondents and perused the court record. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, had no jurisdiction and the Settlement Collector was right in recommending this case to this court for exercising the powers of revision and quashing the impugned order. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that although a remedy of appeal was available to the petitioners they did not avail themselves of the same within the time limit prescribed for it Eventually when they filed an appeal after more than one year it was time -barred and should have been dismissed on this score alone It was also contended by him that it was only an application for correction of revenue entries and not for conferment of ownership rights and, therefore, had been disposed of under »Section 37 of H.P. Land Revenue Act According to him Rule 29 was not attracted as it was not an application under Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act.