KISHORI LAL VERMA Vs. BRAHAM DUTT DEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made by the learned Collector, Una District, wherein he has sought the intervention under section 65 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act read with section 17 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, vide his order dated 9 -10 -1989, passed in case No. 6/89.

(2.) The brief facts leading to this reference are that Shri Kishori Lal Verma, purchased a piece of land measuring 3 Kanals, comprised in Khasra Nos. 49/1, 49/3 and 50. situated in village Punna, Tehsil and District Una, from Dr. Braham Dutt Dev, through a registered sale deed dated 12 -7 -1974 for consideration of Rs. 18,000. In pursuance of the said sale deed, mutation No. 1140 of, village Punna HB No. 244 was entered and finally attested on 12 -12 -1974 by the concerned Assistant Collector. Subsequently, the Assistant Collector concerned submitted a report to the Sub -Divisional Collector Una stating that the sale of land on the basis of which the mutation had been sanctioned, was hit by the provisions of section 118 of the H. P. Tenancy and Laud Reforms Act, which had come into operation with effect from 21 -2 -1974 and that being so, h order of mutation aforesaid called for review. He, therefore, sought permission to review the order passed by his predecessor on 1212 -1974. The Sub Divisional Collector, Una vide his order dated 23 -3 -1976 accorded permission for reviewing the order passed on mutation. Thereafter, the Revenue Officer summoned the parties once again on 16 -12 -1983 at Santokhgarh and rejected the mutation on the ground that the vendee Shri Kishori Lal was not an agriculturist and as such the sale of land in his favour was invalid in view of the provisions of section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. Aggrieved by this order, Shri Kishori Lal Verma preferred an appeal before the Collector, Una District, for abrogation of the order dated 16 -12 -1983. It is as a result of this appeal, which appears to have been treated as revision petition, that the learned Collector, Una District, has recommended that the order dated 16 -12 -1983 of the Assistant Collector be set aside.

(3.) Dr. Braham Dutt Dev, respondent No. 1 had been proceeded ex pane before the learned Collector as well as before this court. The learned Collector had impleaded the State of Himachal Pradesh as a party. As such, we heard the learned District Attorney (Revenue) and also the learned Counsel for the petitioner. We have given due consideration to the arguments adduced by the parties and have also perused the record very carefully. The perusal of record makes it clear that the reference made by the learned Collector, Una District, is not proper. The Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act had come into force on 21 -2 -1974. As such, any transaction made in violation of the provisions of section 118 of the said Act, could not be given effect in the revenue papers The learned Assistant Collector had proceeded legally in asking for the review of the order dated 12 -12 -1974, which had been passed on the mutation. We do not rind any illegality in the order dated 16 12 -1983 of the Assistant Collector, which had been passed after giving reasonable opportunity to the parties affected thereby. Since the order passed by the Assistant Collector on 16 -12 -1983 does not suffer from any illegality, we find no reason to accept the recommendations made by the learned District Collector, Una vide his order dated 9 -10 -1989. Accordingly, the appeal/revision filed by Shri Kishori Lal Verma is dismissed. Order be communicated. Revision dismissed.