S.S.NATH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mrs. S. S Nath, widow of Shri Bisheshwar Nath has filed this revision petition under section 17 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act against the order dated I Mi -1986 of the Commissioner, Shimla Division,

(2.) The facts of the case briefly stated are that Assistant Collector II Grade (Tahsildar), Jubbal ordered the ejectment of Sim Bisheshwa Nath, husband of the petitioner, from the Government land comprised In Khasra Nos. 1734/1/1, 1734/1/2 and 1703 measuring 3 -17 bighas. situated in village Bharal, Tehsil Jubbal, vide his order dated 22 -7 -1969 Shri Bisheshwar Nath filed an appeal against this order of the Assistant Collector before the Collector, Mahasu, who dismissed the appeal vide his order dated 28 -IO4()69 The revision petition against this order of Collector, Mahasu, was filed by Shri Bisheshwar Nath before the Divisional Commissioner on 20 -11 -1973. During the pendency of the revision petition, Shri Bisheshwar Nath expired and his wife Mrs S. S Nath, son Sushil Kumar and daughter Indu Sharma were brought on record as his legal representatives. All these L. Rs. were represented by Smt S S. Nath before the Commissioner, Shimla Division. The learned Commissioner, Shimla Division, heard Mrs. S S. Nath, who appeared for all the petitioners and the learned District Attorney for the State and dismissed the revision petition vide his order dated 11 -11 -1986. Now Mrs. S. S. Nath has come in second revision before us.

(3.) On 12 -5 -1992 Shri Krishan Kumar. Advocate, who appeared vice Shri Bhupinder Gupta, Advocate, Counsel for the petitioner, requested this Court for adjournment since the original Counsel was not present. The perusal of record reveals that a number of adjournments had been taken by the petitioner on the plea that the original Counsel was not in a position to attend this Court. In the interest of justice, last opportunity was given and the case was fixed for 8 -9 -1992. On that day again Shri Krishan Kumar, Advocate appeared vice Shri Bhupinder Gupta, Advocate and took the adjournment on the same plea and the case was listed on 4 -12 -1992. It was on that day that Kumari Sonia Vaidya, Advocate appeared vice Shri Bhupinder Gupta, Advocate, Counsel for the petitioner and once again requested for adjournment on the plea that the original Counsel could not come. Shri Ravinder Sharma, District Attorney (Revenue), who appeared on behalf of the State, opposed the request made by the learned vice Counsel since the case was lingering for the last so many years. As such, the learned vice Counsel was directed to convey to the original Counsel that written arguments, if any, be sent to this Court by 31 -12 -1992 otherwise the case would be decided on the basis of available record.