RAM CHAND Vs. JAI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner, Shimla Division in Revenue Appeal No. 152/95 on 19 -8 -1996. That appeal was filed by Jai Ram and Mohan Lal, who are respondents No. 1 and 2 herein against the order passed by the Settlement Officer. Initially, that appeal was filed against the 3rd petitioner herein and respondents No. 4 to 7. Later an application was filed for impleading petitioners No. 1 and 2 as parties therein. The application was ordered on 24 -7 -1996 on the ground that there was no reply at that stage, but that order was passed without notice to petitioners No. 1 and 2.

(2.) Thereafter, a notice was served on the petitioners and when they appeared before the Officer on 19 -8 -1996, they raised an objection that as against them, the appeal would be barred by limitation and they should not be impleaded in the appeal at that stage. The Officer passed an order on the following terms : "Called. Shri Naresh Verma Advocate vice Shri Y. P. Sood counsel for appellant, Sh. Anil Chandel counsel for respondents No. 6 and 7 are present. Heard counsel for respondents 6 and 7 filed objection for impleading the respondents No. 6 and 7 as party. Heard objection is not accepted. Case is now adjourned for arguments on merit on 4 9 -1996."

(3.) The order on the face of it is unsustainable as it does not give any reason for over -ruling the objection raised by petitioners No. 1 and 2 herein. *The Officer concerned is exercising the power of appeal under section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act. Being a statutory authority, he is bound to consider the contentions of the parties and give an order containing reasons for either accepting the contentions or rejecting the contentions. In this case, the Commissioner has not chosen to give any reason for rejecting the objections Hence, the order passed by the Commissioner on !9 -8 »1996 is set aside and the matter is sent back to the Commissioner for fresh disposal. The Commissioner shall hear petitioners No. 1 and 2 as well as the 1st respondent, who is the appellant before him and decide whether petitioners No 1 and 2 herein can be impleaded as parties to the revenue appeal No. 152/95 After deciding that question and passing an order on the application for impleading petitioners No. 1 and 2 as parties in the revenue appeal, the Commissioner may proceed further with the appeal. It is open to the parties to avail all such remedies as are available under law as against any order which may be passed by the Commissioner in the said application.