MOOL RAJ Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondents No.4 and 5 had submitted application for correction of the revenue record before the Sub-Divisional Collector, Hamirpur. The Sub-Divisional Collector, Hamirpur allowed the application on 8.6.1999 and the Karukans of the land Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. purchased by the petitioners were changed. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 8.6.1999, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division. The appeal was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner exercising the powers of Commissioner on 16.4.2001 and the matter was remanded back to the Sub-Divisional Collector. The Sub-Divisional Collector, Hamirpur vide order dated 31.5.2002 again allowed the application preferred by the respondents No.4 and 5 and ordered the corrections of Karukans in the revenue record. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur exercising the powers of the Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner on 3.2.2003. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision against the said order before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) on 24.7.2006. It will be apt to mention at this stage that the mutation No.1768 was attested in favour of respondents No.4 and 5 on 9.7.1999.

(2.) MR . Kapil Dev Sood had strenuously argued that the orders dated 31.5.2002, 3.2.2003and 24.7.2006 passed by the Sub- Divisional Collector, Hamirpur, Deputy Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) are not sustainable in the eyes of law. He had supported the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, dated 16.4.2001. The learned Advocate General had supported the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Collector, Hamirpur, dated 31.5.2002, order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, dated 3.2.2003 as well as the order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), dated 24.7.2006. Mr. Rajnish Maniktala appearing on behalf of respondents No.4 and 5 had also supported the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Collector, dated 31.5.2002, order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, dated

(3.) IN the present case, the petitioner himself had submitted application for demarcation through Commission in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 22.4.1998. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hamirpur had carried out the demarcation after informing the parties and after visiting the spot. The report had been accepted by the petitioner as recorded by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hamirpur in his order. The statement of the petitioner was also recorded separately as mentioned above by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hamirpur on 21.6.1998. Once the demarcation report has been accepted by the petitioner on the basis of which the order has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Collector on 31.5.2002, he is estopped from challenging the validity of the same. There is no alteration as far as the area on possession of the petitioner is concerned. The mutation was also attested in favour of respondents No.4 and 5 on 9.7.1999.