BONTU Vs. SARJU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made by the learned Settlement Collector, Kangra through the learned Commissioner vide his order dated 29 1 -1972, under section 16 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act (hereinafter called the Act) recommending that the order of the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, dated 17 -3 -1963 in respect of mutation No. 89 of village Dhaboi, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi be set aside and the case remanded to the Revenue Officer directing him that the mutation be attested in equal shares in the names of Saju alias Sarju Singh and Briju nephews of Smt. Sabhu deceased. Besides, the learned Collector has also recommended two other similar revision petitions in respect of mutation Nos. 227 and 131 pertaining to villages Trandol and Manolta respectively in which the facts of the case and the parties are the same. Hence, this order will dispose of all the three petitions.

(2.) The brief facts of these cases are that Smt. Sabhu, widow of one Shri Sairu died issueless on 26 -1 -1968. On her death, she had two nephews viz. Shri Saju alias Sarju Singh and Briju. Subsequent to her death but before the attestation of impugned mutations, Shri Briju also died on 11 -1 1968. Her landed property situated in three different revenue estates viz. Dhaboi, Trandol and Manolta mutated by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade in the name of one of the present respondent, Shri Saju alias Sarju Singh on 17 -3 -1968 and 12 -4 -1968 in the absence of the petitioners Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, Smt. Bohtu widow and Smt. Sarswati daughter of Shri Briju filed three separate revision petitions before the Settlement Collector, Mandi alleging that Shri Briju who was the real brother of Shri Saju alias Sarju Singh was alive on the date of death of Smt. Sabhu and as such the mutations in respect of all the three villages ought to have been sanctioned in equal shares in the name of Shri Saju alias Sarju Singh and Briju who were the legal heirs of the deceased. The learned Collector after hearing the parties has recommended the case to this Court for setting aside the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the records of these cases.