BHANGU (DECEASED) THROUGH Vs. RAMESH CHAND (DECEASED) THROUGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under Section 114 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act against an order dated 4 -10 -2002 passed by the Commissioner (Revenue), Himachal Pradesh in appeal No. 122/2001.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the predecessor in interest of the respondents were recorded as occupancy tenants under the State of H.P. in respect of 61 -2 bighas of land situated in village Bhaghi, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, and were conferred proprietary rights vide mutation No. 149 dated 30 -7 -1975. The predecessor in interest of the petitioners were recorded as non -occupancy tenants over this land under the predecessor in interest of the respondents. On 1 -12 -1975, the predecessor in interest of the respondents applied for resumption of land and the Land Reforms Officer ordered resumption on 7 -4 -1976 accordingly. This order was later remanded by the Distt. Collector, Bilaspur vide order dated 30.11.1988 on appeal and the Land Reforms. Officer, Sadar rejected the application for resumption on 22 -8 -2000. This order dated 22 -8 -2000 was challenged in appeal before the District Collector, Bilaspur who rejected the appeal on 21 -4 -2001 holding that the application for resumption had to be filed within one month from the date of commencement of the rules. The rules came into force on 4 -10 -1975 and the application for resumption has been made 2 -12 -1975 which was barred by limitation. The respondents filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Revenue), Himachal Pradesh who held that the rules came into force on 4 -10 -1975 although these were published in the Rajpatra on 10 -11 -1975. The permissible period as per notification dated 1 -11 -1975 published on 10 -11 -975 provides for a period of two months instead of one months from the date of coming into force of the rules for filing the application for resumption of land through LR -V. The learned Commissioner also observed that the Land Reforms Officer has not given any findings whether the order dated 7 -4 -1976 passed by the Land Reforms Officer is final and binding or not. He remanded the case to the District Collector for deciding it afresh vide order dated 4 -10 -2002.

(3.) The present revision petition has been filed on the grounds that while remanding the case, the learned Commissioner has not decided the point of limitation. It has been averred that the legal question involved in this case is the period of limitation for filing the application for resumption. The conferment of proprietary rights are automatic and therefore, the concessions given to the land owners came to an end on 3 -11 -1975 and further extension of time would not defeat the rights of the tenants.