SHIV KUMAR Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have approached this Court seeking appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the order dated 27.5.1996, passed by the Commissioner, Mandi Division Mandi in case No.189/89, (Annexure P-2) and the order of the Financial Commissioner (Annexure P-3) dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners against the order of the Divisional Commissioner. A further direction is sought for by directing respondent No.1 to decide the case of the petitioners afresh.

(2.) THE brief facts relevant for the purposes of the present petition are that petitioner No.1 had applied to the Collector under the provisions of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for resumption of the land which, according to him, he was entitled to under the provisions of the Act as aforesaid. For this purpose, an application was moved by him which was rejected. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 28.3.1988 passed by the District Collector, Bilaspur, challenging the legality and the validity of the order. In the application filed by the petitioner before the Land Reforms Officer, Ghumarwin for resumption of land under Rule 21 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Rules, 1975, it was stated that the petitioner was entitled to retain the land as detailed therein. The petitioners had submitted that the application was being filed at a late stage since they were minors and had been litigating for their rights before the Civil Court. The petitioners' case further is that Civil Suit No.75/1 was filed in the Court of Sub Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur against the respondents Shri Sunder, Smt.Shankri, Smt.Tirthu, Smt.Ramjani and Smt.Persinu in which a decree for declaration, was prayed for, to the effect that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the land measuring 6.15 Bighas, comprised in Khasra No.107 and 111, Khata Khatauni No.24/40, situated in village Kharota, Pargana Sunhani, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. The petitioner had further prayed for a declaration that the order of the Compensation Officer dated 31.12.1973 declaring the defendants in the suit as owners was null and void having been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. The learned trial Court, after trial, held that the petitioners were minors on 31.12.1973 on the date when the Compensation Officer had passed the order by which the respondents had been granted ownership rights. Such order being against the rights of the minor was null and void. While decreeing the suit, the learned Court held that the petitioners, who were plaintiffs in the suit, were owners of 1.13 Bighas of land. He quashed and set aside the order of the Compensation Officer.

(3.) 3.1982 dismissed the appeal upholding the judgment of the learned trial Court. Another judgment in Civil Suit No.180/1 of 1989, titled Jagdish and Others vs. Sudershan and Shiv Kumar has been placed on record in which a declaration has been sought by the plaintiffs (respondents in the present writ petition)to the effect that they are owners in possession of the land as described in the suit. While decreeing the suit, learned trial Court held that the plaintiffs in the suit are declared to be in possession of the suit land as co-owners and the revenue entry showing the defendants to be in possession of 1/4th share is declared to be wrong and illegal. The defendants (petitioners herein) were restrained permanently from being interfering in the suit land in any manner whatsoever except in due process of law. 4. Learned counsel for the parties have made submissions regarding the merits and demerits of the judgment(s). It is, however, not necessary for me to go into that aspect of the case. The basic grievance of the petitioners is that the application for resumption made by them could not be dismissed solely on the ground that it was barred by time. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the date when the order was passed, the petitioners were minors and the matter was pending in a Civil Court. The appeal preferred by the petitioners was a continuation of the suit and in any event, the matter having been decided only on 4.3.1982, it was on that date that the petitioners were in law, capable of making an application for resumption.