HOKAMI DEVI Vs. HARNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has arisen on the recommendation of Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division dated 22.4.1999 passed by him in revision petition No. 134.97.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that Shri Harnam Singh, present respondent No.1, after getting discharged from the Armed Forces, moved an application in From LR -V on 7.5.1985 before the Land Reforms Officer, Barsar for resumption of his land from the tenants. The Land Reforms Officer vide order dated 23.8.1988 accepted the application and Shri Harnam Singh and Malkiat Singh, present respondents were allowed to resume land from their tenants in equal share, Shri Rirku and others, tenants, challenged this order in appeal before the Collector, Distt. Hamirpur in the year .1990 which was rejected on 22.8.1991.Smt. Hukami Devi, present petitioner also filed another appeal against the same order of the Land Reforms Officer. Barsar dated 23.8.1988 before the Distt. Collector, Hamirpur on 13.11.1992 alleging that she was neither given notice nor informed and the order was passed in her absence. The learned Collector vide order dated 25.2.1992 accepted the appeal remanded the mater to the Land Reforms Officer, Barsar for deciding it afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties. The Land Reforms Officer, Barsar processed the case again. The applicants also filed an amended application whereby they restricted their claim to Khasra Nos. 332 and 333 and the Land Reforms Officer vide order dated 26.5.19954 ordered resumption of the land comprised in khasra No. 332/1, measuring 0 -5 marlas and of the remaining area of the khasra Nos. 332/2 and 333 ownership rights were ordered to be conferred upon the present petitioner (tenant).Aggrieved by this order of Land Reforms Officer dated 26.5.1994, Smt. Hukami Devi filed a appeal before the Distt. Collector, Hamirpur, w(io vide order dated 27.10.1995 dismissed the same. Not satisfied by the order of the Collector, Hamirpur. She filed a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division who heard the parties and perused the record of the case and vide order dated 22.11999 has recommended the matter to this court holding that the petitioner is a widow and her share under tenancy cannot be resumed as such the courts below have committed illegalities and irregularities to take note of such lapses. It has been recommended that the orders passed by the Land Reforms Officer, Barsar and Distt. Collector, Hamirpur are required to be struck down, and the matter may be remanded to the Land Reforms Officer, Barsar to decide it afresh after affording full opportunity of being heard to all concerned . Hence, this revision petition before this court.

(3.) The record of the case has been seen and counsel for the parties heard, Counsel for the petitioner stressed the grounds taken in the revision petition filed before the learned Divisional Commissioner and requested that the recommendation of the learned Divisional Commissioner dated 22.4.1999 may be accepted.