SHIV LAL Vs. KANHAIYA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Shiv Lai has filed this revision petition under section 114 (3) of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Act) against the orders dated 23 -3 -1981 and 4 -8 -1988 of the Land Reforms Officer (Tehsildar exercising the powers of Assistant Collector, 1st Grade), Joginder Nagar. During the pendency of the revision petition, Shri Kanhaiya Lai expired and his name was ordered to be deleted at the request of the petitioner,,

(2.) The facts of the case briefly stated are that Shri Shiv Lai applied for reservation of land to the Land Reforms Officer, Joginder Nagar, under section 104 of the Act The reservation order was passed by the learned Land Reforms Officer on 23 -3 -1981. The petitioner stated that he was allowed to resume 5 -0 -19 bighas of land comprised Khasra Nos. 437 and 456/1 and the respondents surrendered the possession of these Khasra numbers. However, lateron he came to know that the land measuring 1 -9 -6 bigha had only been allowed on the record to be resumed and the petitioner immediately thereafter filed an application for review of the order dated 27 -3 -198i. He has stated that the parties were heard and the learned Land Reforms Officer recommended for permission to review on 23 -2 -1988 but the learned Sub -Divisional Collector declined to review the order on 2; -6 -i988. Accordingly, the Cand Reforms Officer rejected the review application on 4 -8 -1988. Feeling aggrieved by the orders dated 23 -31981 and 4 -8 -1S8S of the Land Reforms Officer, Shri Shiv Lai has come in revision before us.

(3.) We have gone through the record very carefully and have also heard the arguments advanced by Shri P. P. Goel, Advocate, Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Som Nath Sharma, Advocate, Counsel for the respondent No 2, Shri Bhup Singh. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has come in revision since an appeal does not lie from an order refusing to review, or confirming on review, a previous order as laid down under section 63 of theAct. The learned Counsel for the respondent argued that the proper course for the petition was to file an appeal against the order dated 23 -3 -1981 the Land Reforms Officer. He also argued that the revision was not maintainable since that was time barred We are also of the view that the petitioner had not taken step to avail of the legal remedy provided under the Act If he had any grievance against the order dated 23 -3 -1981 the Land Reforms Officer, he ought to have preferred an appeal under section 114 of the Act within the prescribed period This revision has been presented after 103 days after deducting the days taken for obtaining copies. Moreover, the petitioner has attached the entries, which have been continuing in the Jamabandis for the last so many years and the same cannot be corrected by way of this revision petition. Accordingly, we find no force in the revision petition and the same is dismissed. To be communicated. Revision dismissed. -