STATE OF H.P. Vs. JASWINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the State of H.P. through District Collector, Solan, under Section 118(3)(c) of the H.P. Tenancy Land Reforms Act, 1972 against an order dated 7.6.2005 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division in appeal No. 125/2001. The learned Commissioner, has accepted the appeal of the present respondent filed against an order dated 27.2.2001 of the District Collector, Solan and held that the appellant (Smt. Jaswinder Kaur) has not violated the provisions of Section 118 of the Act as found by the Sub Divisional Collector and Distt. Collector, Solan in their order dated 26.8.1993 and 27.2.2001, respectively.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the Sub Divisional, Commissioner, solan initiated proceedings under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, against the p;resent respondent (Smt. Jaswinder Kaur) and vide order dated 26.8.1993 ordered the confiscation of the land in question (Khasra Nos. 505/1, 506 and 507, situated in Mauza Saprun, Tehsil and Distt. Solan) alongwith structure, if any, standing thereon favour of the State Government. Against the said order Smt. Jaswinder Kaur filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division, who vide his order dated 29.3.1994 remanded the case back to the District Collector, Solan with the observation that the matter is to be disposed of by the District Collector under Rule 38(b) of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Rules, 1993. The Distt. Collector heard the matter and on 27.2.2001 passed a detailed order upholding the order dated 26.8.1993 passed by the Sub Divisional Collector, Solan and ordered that the land in question alongwith structure thereon would stand vested in the State of H.P. for the violation of the provisions of the Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Distt. Collector dated 27.2.2001, the present respondent (Smt. Jaswinder Kaur) filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, who vide his order dated 7.6.2004 accepted the appeal and held as under :

(3.) In view of the above, the appellant has not violated the provisions of Section 118 of the Act. -