JAGDISH CHANDER Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present matter has sent to this Court by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala vide his order dated 25.4.1995.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that 2/3 share in khasra Nos. 270, 271, 272 and 273 measuring 0 -11 -42 Hact. Situated in Mohal Gabli Dar, Mauza Ghanyara, Tehsil Dharamshala was purchased by the petitioner vide sale deed No. 345 dated 3 -12 -1982. Subsequently mutation No. 138 regarding the same was sanctioned by the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, and Dharamshala on 11 -01 -1984. This mutation was reviewed on 22 -1 -1988 and cancelled by the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade on the grounds that the petitioner could not purchase the land being a non -agriculturist. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub -Divisional Collector, Dharamshala who accepted the appeal on 22 -01 -1988 on the grounds that the matter was time -barred and Assistant Collector 2nd Grade should not have reviewed the mutation. In the meantime an enquiry was conducted into the said sale on a reference by the Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh on the allegation that the petitioner had purchased only two khasra Nos. i.e. khasra Nos. 271 and 272 and the mutation was wrongly entered in respect of 4 khasra Nos. 270, 271, 272 and 273 while it should have been only for khasra Nos. 271 and 272 which were Gair Mumkin House and Courtyard. The Deputy Commissioner, Kangra initiated action for the matter to be taken up as a revision and referred the same to the Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner challenged this action of the Deputy Commissioner, before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra who vide order dated 30 -10 -1991 directed that the matter be heard afresh by the District Collector. The District Collector, vide order dated 22 -01 -1994 held that on the date of purchase of the land i.e. 03 -12 -1982, the land comprised in khasra Nos. 270, 271 and 272 were classified as Gair Mumkin which the petitioner could buy without the prior permission of the State Government, while he could not buy khasra No. 273 which was classified as Khadter. The learned Collector held that the mutation had been wrongly rejected and the Assistant Collector should have transferred 2/3 share comprised in khasra Nos. 270, 271 and 272 in favour of Shri Jagdish Chander. The District Collector, Kangra recommended the matter to the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) for passing of appropriate orders through the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra. The learned Commissioner held vide order dated 25 -04 -1995 that the District Collector cannot refer the matter to the Financial Commissioner under Section 65 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 but there is no bar in consideration of the case on merits. The learned Commissioner proceeded to decide the case accordingly and agreed with the findings of the District Collector. He has recommended that the findings of the District Collector may be accepted and appropriate orders be passed by the Financial Commissioner.

(3.) The record as received along with the recommendation of the learned Commissioner has been perused. The arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties were also heard. Written arguments were submitted by the petitioners which were placed on record. The learned Counsel for petitioner contended that the petitioner purchased the land in dispute comprising khasra Nos. 270, 271, 272 and 273 measuring 0 -10 -31 Hect. to the extent of 2/3 shares vide a registered sale deed on 3.12.1982. According to the learned Counsel the purchase was made a bona fide manner of an area which in part comprised of built up structures. Mutation thereof had been correctly sanctioned in his favour on 11.01.1984 but this was later reviewed by the Assistant Collector, Ilnd Grade on the grounds that the petitioner was a non -agriculturist. Further, according to him, the learned Sub -Divisional Collector, Dharamshala had accepted his appeal against the review by holding that the review was time barred. Later, he contended, the learned District Collector had held that the petitioner could have purchased khasra Nos. 270, 271 and 272 being built up area but since the khasra No. 273 was Khadetar, he was not entitled to purchase the same. The learned Counsel stated that the petitioner had been conveyed permission to purchase kliasra Nos. 271 and 272 although he had actually applied for permission to purchase khasra No. 273. He argued that the applicants/respondents No. 2 and 3 had no locus stand to challenge his purchase of the land in dispute.