KOLI Vs. TAJINDER KUMAR ALIAS TITLU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Koli and others have filed this revision petition under section 17 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act against the order dated 4 -9 -1986 of the Commissioner, Mandi Division.

(2.) The facts of the case briefly stated are that the Assistant Collector, II Grade, Tehsil Sadar, Mandi, attested the mutation No. 79 of inheritance of Smt. Tungli in favour of Shri Lahola, on 31 -5 -1973. Feeling aggrieved by this order, Shri Tajinder Kumar, present respondent, filed an appeal in the court of Sub -Divisional Collector, Mandi on the ground that the deceased Smt. Tungli was his maternal grand mother and the Assistant Collector, II Grade had not informed him at the time of attestation of mutation and the same was attested in his absence. The learned Sub -Divisional Collector, Mandi, accepted the appeal on 15 -10 -1985 and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector II Grade, Sadar Tehsil Mandi, for deciding the case afresh after giving opportunity of being heard to both the parties Shri Lahola in whose name mutation was attested on 31 -5 -1973, expired and his LRs S/Shri Kohli and others, present petitioners. filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Mandi Division against the order dated 15 -10 -1985 of the Sub -Divisional Collector, Mandi. The appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner, Mandi Division, vide her order dated 4 -9 -1986 Now Shri Koli and others have come in revision before us against the order dated 4 -9 -1986 of the Commissioner, Mandi Division.

(3.) We have gone through the record and have also given due consideration to the arguments advanced by Shri G. D - Saini, Advocate, Counsel for the petitioners and Shri Mahi Pal Sharma, Advocate, Counsel for the respondent. The perusal of record makes it clear that Shri Tajinder Kumar, respondent was not afforded any opportunity of being heard though he was maternal grand son of deceased Smt. Tungli Under the circumstances, the Sub -Divisional Collector was justified in remanding the case for affording an opportunity of being heard to the respondent, who was an interested party. There does not appear to be any illegality or irregularity in the order of the learned Sub -Divisional Collector and the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. As such, the revision petition is dismissed. Revision dismissed. -