SARAN DASS Vs. KANTA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter has been recommended by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra who, while adjudicating upon appeal No 149/92 has treated the same as a revision petition since proviso (1) of section 14 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 under which the appeal had been filed before the Ld. Commissioner bars a second appeal in cases where an original order is confirmed on first appeal. The learned Commissioner has recommended that sanction order dated 9.12.1998 passed by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Nurpur on mutation No. 19 of Up Mohal" Rampuri, Tehsil Nurpur vide which proprietary rights of land entered therein were conferred upon the present petitioners S/Shri Saran Dass and Tara Chand, sons of Shri Raj Nath may be restored.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the Assistant Collector, Second Grade, Nurpur attested mutation No. 19 of Up Mohal Rampuri, Tehsil Nurpur vide which proprietary rights of land entered therein were conferred upon the present petitioners S/Shri Saran Dass and Tara Chand, son of Shri Raj Nath on 9.12.1988. Later, The Assistant Collector, IInd Grade reviewed the said order of sanction on 23.7.1990 after obtaining a permission to review the same. This order dated 23.7.1990 was challenged in appeal before the Collector, Settlement, Kangra by the petitioners but the learned Collector Settlement dismissed the appeal on 4.10.1991. The petitioners then filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner Kangra who treated the same, as a revision petition and has observed vide decision dated 20.2.1995 that though it is correct that the land over which proprietary rights have been obtained cannot be transferred further by way of sale, gift mortgage or otherwise till a period ten years from the date from which the rights are so acquired but this does not mean that if such a sale is made by the person upon whom the proprietary rights have been conferred, the original mutation conferring the rights too can be obliterated or reversed as has been done by the Assistant Collector and upheld by the Settlement Collector in the instant case.

(3.) I have perused the record as received from the Commissioner and have also heard the arguments advanced by the Id. Counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner stressed that the recommendation of the learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra made vide his order dated 20.2.1995 be accepted. Mutation No. 19 was not required to be reviewed by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade. Only the alleged sale transaction would not be affected in the revenue record as the same was void.