JAGDISH CHAND Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two revision petitions which are being disposed of by this single order for the reasons discussed herein under.

(2.) The petitioners presented an application for correction of Khasra Girdawari entries pertaining to khasra No.544 min, measuring 1 -8 bighas situated in Mauza Dehari, Tehsil Kandaghat, Distt. Solan, before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade on the grounds that one Shri Sewak Ram, who was in recorded possession over the same had died executed a Will in their favour according to which they had inherited all the property of the deceased Sewak Ram. This application was rejected by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade vide an order dated 23.7.1993 who held that the said land was in the ownership of the State Govt. and though the deceased Sewak Ram had been in recorded possession over the same, the present petitioners could not be recorded as being in possession over the same by virtue of a Will executed by the deceased. The order dated 23.7.1999 of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade was assailed in appeal by the petitioners before the Sub -Divisional Collector, Kandaghat who rejected the same on 28.10.1993. The Division who also dismissed the same vide an order dated 31.7.1995 which has been assailed in revision petition No. 669/95 before this Court.

(3.) Durlng the pendency of the present revision petition, proceeding under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act were initiated against the petitioner No.1, Shri Jagdish Chand for encroaching 0 -16 Biswas of land out of the aforementioned khasra No. 544 measuring 1 -8 Bighas which is the subject matter of revision petition No.339/98. Shri Jagdish Chand was ordered to be ejected from the said land by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Kandaghat on 31.3.1997. Shri Jagdish Chand filed an appeal before the Sub -Divisional Collector, Kandaghat on the grounds that since Shri Sewak Ram who had been in recorded possession of this land, had executed a Will in his favour and therefore he cannot be held to have encroached upon the said land and that in similarly situated other cases, mutations have been attested in favour of persons in column of possession. The learned Collector after hearing the matter, dismissed his appeal. He filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Shimla Division who held that the Collector had not given adequate attention to the petitioners plea that in similarly situated cases mutations had been attested in the columns of possession. He has therefore, vide order dated 7.12.1998 and is being disposed of alongwith revision petition No. 669/95 as facts of both the matter are interrelated.