LAL CHAND Vs. RAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions have been filed by Shri Lai Chand Sikka (now deceased) under Section 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act against the order of the Commissioner, Shimla Division dated 12.1.2000 in Case No. 108/99 and 109/99, whereby the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Shimla dated 28.6.1999 was confirmed and the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, Shri Lai Chand Sikka (now deceased) filed two separate applications under Section 37 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act before the Assistant Collector, llnd Grade, Theog, claiming to be in possession of land in Khasra Nos. 203 and 209, measuring 2 -6 bighas, and khasra No. 303/211 and 295/194, measuring.2 -16 bighas, respectively, situated in Mohal Galu Kalan. -Tehsil Theog, District Shimla since the year 1977 when he purchased the same. This purchase was allegedly effected before the amendment of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 in 1988 and published in Rajpatra of H.P. on 14.4.1988. The Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade after making enquiry under Section 37 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act and after ascertaining the situation on the spot passed the order dated 30.11.1996 through which the possession of the petitioner on the spot was recorded in respect of the khasra numbers stated above. This order of the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade was challenged in two appeals No. 08/96 and 9/96 before the Assistant Settlement Officer (Collector Settlement) who through his order dated 28.6.1999 set aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade on 30.11.1996. These orders were challenged before the Commissioner, Shimla Division, who upheld the same vide a single order dated 12.1.2000 passed in appeals No. 108/99 and 109/99 and observed that the Collector (Settlement) had rightly set aside the order of the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade for the reason that the appellant was a non -agriculturist and therefore he could not be recorded in possession of the land in dispute as this would be a violation of the provisions of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972.

(3.) In the grounds of the revision petition it has been stated that no notice under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 was issued to the petitioner in respect to the land in dispute. The courts below did not have jurisdiction in the matter. The petitioner had purchased about 20 bighas of land from the respondnet and the petitioner was in possession of the this area since 1977. It was the duty of the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade to ascertain the possession over the land in the proceedings before him for correction of the revenue entries. The Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade had conducted a full enquiry and passed his order regarding possession on the spot being with the petitioner in respect of the khasra numbers mentioned above. Further the petitioner was in settled possession of the land and he could not be evicted from the same except in due course of law. The title of the respondents 16 and 17 was highly disputed and the sale dated 31.5.1997 was illegal. Though this sale deed by they were claiming possession on the basis of purchase of land from Respondent Nos. 1 to 15 while this land had already been purchased by the petitioner from the Respondent Nos. 1 to 15 in 1977 and these respondents had no right title or interest over the land in question left with them.