SATYA DEVI Vs. NIKKA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 14 of H.P. Land Revenue Act has been filed by Smt. Satya Devi, appellant against an order dated 19.12.2001 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner has set -aside an order of the Collector, Sub -Division, Ghumarwin dated 25.6.2001.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the present respondents were co -owners in land bearing khasra Nos. 2105, 2109 and 2119 measuring 22 -8 Bighas situated at Mohal Lehari Sarel, Tehsil Ghumarwin, Distt. Bilaspur. Sh. Sher Singh, the present respondent No. 2, filed an application for partition of the said land before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade Ghumarwin, who sanctioned the mode of partition on 5.6.1999 and accordingly the instrument of partition was also prepared on 17.8.1999. Thereafter, Sh. Sher Singh sold 2 biswas of land to present petitioner. Mutation No. 1809 was accordingly entered by the patwari which was sanctioned by the Assistant Collector Ilnd Grade on 10.1.2001. Aggrieved against the same, the present respondent No.l, Sh. Nikka Ram, filed an appeal before the Collector, Sub -Division Ghumarwin on the ground that a civil suit was pending between the parties in which an injunction had been granted by the learned Sub -Judge Ghumarwin, despite which the mutation had been sanctioned. The learned Collector dismissed appeal on 25.6.2001 holding that sufficient opportunity was provided by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade to Sh. Nikka Ram to produce a copy of the injunction granted by the learned Sub -Judge, Ghumarwin despite which he could not produce the same. The learned Collector further held that the mutation was rightly attested on the basis of a sale deed executed as the share of present respondent No. 2 and that the record can always be brought in conformity of the order passed by the Civil Court. Aggrieved against this order, Sh. Nikka Ram filed an appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner exercising the powers of Commissioner on the grounds as previously set forth before the Collector. The Additional Deputy Commissioner accepted the appeal on 19.12.2001 and remanded the matter back to the Assistant Collector IInd Grade Ghumarwin holding that the revenue Courts should wait for the outcome of the matter from the Civil Court. Against this order, Smt. Satya Devi, petitioner, has filed the present appeal before us.

(3.) The records of the Courts below were called for and the arguments advanced by the Counsel for the parties were heard. Shri N.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that as per the proviso (i) of Section 14 of H.P. Land Revenue Act against an original order confirmed on the first appeal, no further appeal lies and hence the appeal filed by the present respondent No. 1 before the Commissioner was not maintainable. He further argued that the plea of the respondent No. 1 that the mutation could not have been attested due to a status quo order of the Civil Court, was wrong as the legal course in such an eventuality would have been to file a contempt proceeding and not to have challenged the same before the revenue officers.