DEVINDER SINGH JASWAL Vs. NAGENDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 6th July, 2010, made by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 472 of 2007, titled as Nagender Singh versus The Financial Commissioner (Appeals), H.P. Shimla and others, whereby writ petition filed by the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 herein came to be allowed and the order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Shimla, H.P., dated 23rd January, 2007 (Annexure P-11 to the writ petition) came to be quashed (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned judgment").

(2.) This case has a chequered history and depicts how the appellant has invoked the jurisdiction of the Revenue Courts, Civil Courts and again the Revenue Courts in order to deprive the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 herein to enjoy/reap the fruits of the entire litigation, which he has completed with success.

(3.) It appears that the Collector had made an order on 9th September, 1975 (Annexure P-2 to the writ petition), whereby land was to be allotted to Shri Chain Singh, father of the writ petitionerrespondent No. 1 herein, and the said order was given effect to by the Revenue Authority by effecting mutation Nos. 4437, 4438, 4439, 4440 and 4441, dated 21st September, 1987. The appellant had questioned those mutations by the medium of appeal, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 29th August, 1995 (Annexure P-4 to the writ petition). The said order of the Appellate Authority was not questioned and had attained finality. However, the appellant had filed a Civil Suit before Senior Sub Judge, Una, which was decreed on 26th December, 1984. The appeal was filed by the father of the writ petitioner, i.e. Shri Chain Singh, which was dismissed on 1st September, 1988; was questioned by the writ petitioner and his father, Shri Chain Singh, by the medium of RSA No. 351 of 1988; was allowed vide judgment and order, dated 30th December, 1999 (Annexure P-5 to the writ petition), whereby the judgments made by the Civil Court and the Appellate Court were set aside and it was held that the suit was not maintainable. The appellant had questioned the same by the medium of SLP, which was dismissed by the Apex Court vide judgment and order, dated 9th February, 2001 (Annexure P-6 to the writ petition). Thus, the orders made by the Revenue Authorities in terms of order, dated 9th September, 1975, made by the Collector and the orders passed by the Civil Courts dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant herein had attained finality.