PARAMJIT Vs. LAKHA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Ld. Counsel for the petitioners had reiterated the grounds taken in the revision petition and has contended that the land in dispute comprising khasra No. 1097 of 1099 has been carved out of old khasra nos. 20 and 51 and the same has been in possession of the petitioners since long. He argued that the entries of these khasra nos. was got changed by the respondents no. 1 and 2 in connivance with the settlement staff during settlement of the area. It was further argued by him that the Naib Tehsildar Settlement had reported that the petitioners were in possession over the land in dispute but the Settlement Officer still rejected the application for correction without any valid reason. The Id. Counsel contended that the Settlement Officer had ordered change of ownership of the land in favour of the State government even though the State government was not a party to the dispute. According to the Id. Counsel, the factual position on spot ahs been ignored by the courts below while passing the orders. He prayed that the orders of these courts may be set aside by allowing the revision petition of the petitioners.

(2.) The respondents No.1 and 2 have been proceeded against exparte during these proceedings as they failed to appear despite service upon then. The Id. D.A. (Revenue) appearing for the State of HP. argued that the findings of the Settlement Officer as well as the Ld. Commissioner are exhaustive and clear regarding the points raised by the petitioners. Both the courts below have observed that as per the revenue record the entries over the land in dispute since 1941 -42 till 1977 -78 depicted Shamlat Deh hasb Rasad Malguzari in the column of possession. In the year 1978 -79 entry regarding the possession of the petitioner had appeared abruptly. This entry has been made without any order of the competent authority and hence had no legal sanction. He argued that since all common lands stood vested in the State government after coming into force of the H.P. Common Land (Vesting and Utilization) Act, 1974 the Id. Settlement Officer has rightly ordered the land to be recorded in the ownership of the State Government. 3.Having perused the record and carefully considering the arguments put forth before me, I am of the opinion that the entries of the petitioners which appeared in the revenue record in the year 1978 -79 have no legal validity since these have been made without any basis. The Id. Counsel for the petitioners have failed to convince me as to the appearance of the entries in the column of possession in favor of the petitioners for the first time in the Jamabandi for the year 1977 -78. There is nothing on record to explain these entries. An entry cannot thus find place in the revenue record unless a competent authority has ordered the incorporation of the entry subject to the restriction as laid under section 38 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954.

(3.) In view of the facts as discussed herein above, I find no reason to interfere with the perfectly legal findings arrived at by the courts below. The revision petition, being devoid of any merits is dismissed.