GOVERDHAN DAS Vs. PANCHAYAT SHILLIBAR THROUGH PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Goverdhan Dass has filed this revision petition against the order dated 26 -6 -1985 of the Commissioner, Kangra Division.

(2.) The facts of the case briefly stated are that Shri Narpat, father of the petitioner, Shri Goverdhan Dass, was granted Nautor land comprised in Khasra No. 6280, measuring 11 biswas, situated in village Bhuntar, District Kullu, by the erstwhile Raj of Rupi. The Bartandars of Phati Shillihar, Kothi Kotkandhi, filed a civil suit in the Court of Sub Judge, Kullu, for issuing a decree of perpetual injunction to prohibit Shri Narpat from using this land. This case was reportedly compromised by the parties. According to the compromise 7 biswas of land comprised in Khasra No. 6280/2 was to remain in the possession of Shri Narpat while regarding the land measuring 4 biswas comprised in Khasra No 6280/1, the Sub -Judge, Kullu, issued perpetual injunction on 5 -6 -1961. On the basis of this injunction, the Bartandars of Phati Shillihar, got the mutation entered in mutation register and the same was sanctioned by the Assistant Collector, II Grade, Kullu, on 10 -6 -1974. Shri Narpat filed an appeal before the Collector, Kullu against this order whereby the mutation was sanctioned by the Assistant Collector, II Grade, Kullu but the same was dismissed by him on 12 -2 -1975. Feeling aggrieved by this order, Shri Narpat filed revision petition under section 17 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act but the same was also dismissed by the Commissioner, Kangra Division, vide his order dated 26 -6 -1985. During the pendency of the revision petition, Shri Narpat expired and he was represented before the Commissioner, Kangra Division, by his son Shri Duni Chand. Now Shri Goverdhan Dass, another son of Shri Narpat has come in revision before us against the orders of the Revenue Officers below. In this revision petition, Shri Duni Chand has been impleaded as respondent No. 2 and he was proceeded ex pane alongwith the respondent No. 1, Panchayat Shillihar.

(3.) We have gone through the record of the case very carefully and have also given due consideration to the arguments advanced by Shri R. S. Verma, Advocate, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Goverdhan Dass, petitioner has stated that the Revenue Officers below acted with serious illegality in ordering the mutation No. 3216 in respect of 4 biswas of land comprised in Khasra No. 6280/1. He also stated that the alleged decree had become time barred and could not be given effect for a number of years. He has also stated that the revenue entries constantly depicted the petitioner to be in possession of the property and the alleged decree was not binding upon him. We have gone through the report of the Sub -Divisional Officer (Civil), Kullu, which had been called by this Court. The Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Kullu has submitted his report vide his letter No 677/:0, dated 14 -7 -1992. The Sub -Divisional Officer (Civil) has clearly stated in the concluding para of his report that Khasra No. 6280/1, measuring 4 biswas is a path, which is used by the people for going to the river side and as such, this piece of land should not be allotted to Shri Goverdhan Dass. The perusal of order dated 5 -6 -1961 of the Sub Judge, Kullu, makes it clear that a perpetual injunction had been issued by the Civil Court and no limit had been fixed for the execution of the decree granting perpetual injunction under section 136 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. In view of the legal position and the report of the Sub -Divisional Officer (Civil), Kullu, we find no irregularity or illegality in the order dated 10 -6 -1974 of the Assistant Collector, Kullu passed on mutation No. 3216 in favour of Gram Panchayat. The District Collector, Kullu and the Commissioner, Kangra Division, have rightly upheld the order passed by the Assistant Collector, II Grade, Kullu. Since there is no force in the revision petition, the same is dismissed. To be communicated. Revision dismissed.