RAMESHWAR Vs. GHUNGAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by Shri Rameshwar Dass, petitioner through his counsel Shri Mohinder Verma, Advocate against an order passed by the learned Collector, Sub -Division, Kalpa on 06.07.2000 whereby an order dated 24.6.2004 passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade Sangla was set aside. 2 Briefs facts of the case are that the present respondent Shri Ghungar Singh filed an application before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sangla for correction of revenue entries qua the column of possession of land comprising Khasra Nos. 871 situated in Up Mohal Kuppa, Tehsil Sangla. It was claimed in the application that entries in the column of possession pertaining to said Khasra Nos. as depicted in the Jamabandi for year 1995 -96 which show, one Shri Vidhya Ram, father of the present petitioner, to be in possession .of the same, were wrong -The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade got the matter inquired into and thereafter he himself visited the spot on 22,5.2000 and partly allowed the application by ordering that Shri Ghungar Singh is best entitled to the possession of the land composed in Khasra No 871 only The present petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector Kalpa on the ground that forefathers of the petitioners were in possession of the land in dispute for more than last 60 years and in the Jamabandi and Misal Haquiat of Bandobast Jadid 1982 the same remained undisputed and are long standing entries which could not be ordered to be corrected by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. The learned Collector, vide an impugned order dated 6.7.2004, held that while the learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade was competent to order correction in the revenue record, the inquiry made by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade was not sufficient and conclusive. He has, vide the impugned order dated 6.7.2004 directed Assistant Collector 1st Grade to inquire into the matter denovo. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed.

(2.) The entire record of the courts below were called for and perused carefully. The oral arguments by Shri Mohinder Verma, learned counsel for petitioner as well as the written arguments submitted by the respondent through his power of attorney have been duly considered.

(3.) Shri Mohinder Verma, learned counsel for petitioner reiterated the submissions made in the revision petition and argued that entries already incorporated in the record of rights cannot be changed by a Revenue Officer and therefore, the application under Section 37 of the HP. Land Revenue Act could not be entertained by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. It has also been submitted that the entries as incorporated in the jamabandi were finalized during the course of settlement by the Collector Settlement and therefore the Assistant Collector 1st Grade was not competent to entertain the application for correction of revenue entries. It has been further contended that one Shri Dilli Bhagat being the recorded owner of 1/2 share over the land in dispute other necessary parties had not been impleaded by the present respondent in his application before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. According to the petitioner, the learned Collector, too, had failed to appreciate the facts of the case. He has prayed that while setting aside the impugned orders, he may be held to be entitled to the possession over Khasra No.871 and 872.