PREM CHAND Vs. STATE OF H.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against an order dated 2 -4 -2002 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu exercising the powers of Commissioner under the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the Assistant Collector, lst,Grade, Kullu initiated proceedings under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act in respect of Tukra No. 1 measuring 2 -13 bighas, Tukra No. 2 measuring K -9 bigha, Tukra No. 3 measuring 8 -9 bighas, Tukra No. 4 measuring 4 bighas and Tukra No. 5 measuring 7 -7 bighas against one Shri Krishan Kumar and Smt. S. Rani. The Assistant Collector ordered ejectment of I the said persons vide an order dated 22 -7 -1991 and the possession of the said land was handed over to the Forest Department on 15 -10 -1992. The present petitioner No. 2 filed a revision petition against the order of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade before the Collector, Sub Division, Kullu who directed the Assistant Collector to initiate review proceedings pease any mis -carriage of justice has been done. The Assistant Collector I held an enquiry and reported back to the Sub Divisional Collector that encroachment proceedings have been initiated in respect of Tukra No. 4 measuring 4 bighas against the present petitioners. Accordingly, permission to review the earlier order dated 22 -7 -1991 was granted and encroachment proceedings in respect of Tukra No. 4 measuring 4 bigha were taken up against the present petitioners while the order was confirmed qua the remaining land. The present petitioners challenged the order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade passed on 4 -10 -1997 before the Sub Divisional Collector, Sub Division, Kullu who forwarded the case to the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu exercising the powers of Commissioner on the grounds that once the possession has been delivered to the Forest Department in pursuance of the ejectment order dated 22 -7 -1991, the question of initiating further proceedings does not arise. The Deputy Commissioner, Kullu accepted the recommendation of the Sub Divisional Collector vide his order dated 22 -4 -2002 and set aside the order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, dated 4 -10 -1997.

(3.) The present revision petition has now been tiled on the grounds that the order dated 22 -4 -2002 is a non -speaking order. It has been averred that the Sub Divisional Collector has exercised powers not vested in him and that the Conservator of Forests was not an aggrieved party in the matter.