PARAS RAM Vs. NIKKA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners under Section 65 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, against he order dated 29.09.2005 passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division in case No. 471/2003, whereby the appeal of the present respondents was accepted and the order dated 26.06.2003 passed by the district Collector was set aside.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the present respondents, Shri Nikka Ram and others filed an application on 06.03.1997 before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade (LRO), Sadar Bilaspur for correction of revenue entries in respect of land comprised in khata/khatauni No. 12/12, khasra No. 62, 95, 141/ 125, measuring 12 -13bighas, situated in Mauza Ropa, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur. On 30.03.1997, the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade visited the spot and recorded the statements of the present petitioners and on 23.06.1997 ordered recording of the tenancy of the applicants (Shri Nikka Ram and others) over the suit land owned by the present petitioners. This order was assailed in appeal by the present petitioners before the Collector, Subdivision, Sadar, which was later transferred for adjudication to District Collector, Bilaspur. The learned District Collector, Bilaspur accepted the appeal on 26.06.2003 and set aside the order passed by the Land Reforms Officer and remanded the matter to him for fresh enquiry and decision. He held that the Land Reforms Officer had neither followed the procedure prescribed under law for correction of revenue entries recorded in consecutive jamabandis nor conducted himself in a judicious manner by not providing proper opportunity of being heard to the appellants (present petitioners). Feeling aggrieved by this order of the Collector, dated 26.06.2003, the present respondents filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division who vide order dated 29.09.2005, accepted the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Collector; Bilaspur dated 26.06.2003. Shri Paras Ram and others, aggrieved of the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner dated 29.09.2005, have filed this revision petition before this Court.

(3.) The record of the case has been seen and Counsel for the parties heard. The learned Counsel for the petitioners again reiterated that the petitioners had never agreed to Shri Nikka Ram and others being recorded as tenants under them over the suit land owned by the petitioners. He stated that no proper service was effected on the petitioners. A perusal of the notice dated 30 -05 -1997 issued to Shri Paras Ram by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade shows that it was returned by the process server with the remark that Shri Paras Ram was missing since a long time. This notice is available on page 32 of the relevant file. Likewise another notice issued for 02 -01 -2004 has also been returned back with the remark that Shri Paras Ram was missing since the last many years. This notice is available on page 38 of the file of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade. Also, record shows that no summons had been issued to Smt. Har Dei. It is therefore not understood as to how the statement of Shri Paras Ram with his thumb impression thereupon was recorded by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade on 30 -03 -1997 which is available on page 13 of his file. All these facts indicate that the present petitioners were not a party to the proceedings before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade and the statement of Shri Paras Ram as recorded by him is doubtful. The order of Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur dated 26.06.2003 mentions that l/4th of produce was claimed as being given by the tenants to the owners but there was nothing in the jamabandis to support this claim of the respondents. The claim made by the respondents that the present petitioners were living with them was also not borne out by the fact that the addresses given in the petition before the learned Divisional Commissioner were different from their own addresses. Smt. Nagru had died in the course of the proceedings. The application was filed for bringing her LRs on the record but this was not decided. The learned Counsel stressed that the order of the District Collector dated 26 -06 -2003 setting aside the orders of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade allowing application for correction of revenue entries in respect of the suit land and recording the tenancy of the applicants (Shri Nikka Ram and others) should be upheld.