LAWS(HPH)-2018-4-124

RAM SARAN Vs. RAMESHWARI DEVI AND OTHERS

Decided On April 24, 2018
RAM SARAN Appellant
V/S
Rameshwari Devi And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is maintained by the petitioner, against the order dated 22.04.2017, passed by learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade, in case No. 21/9 of 2016 and the order dated 09.08.2017, passed by the Collector, Ghumarwin SubDivision, District Bilaspur, H.P., in case No. 42/2 of 2017.

(2.) Briefly stating facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner purchased a land, comprised in Khasra No. 66, situated at Village Kalyana, Pargana Tiun, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., vide registered sale deed No. 809/2014 and vide order dated 012014, passed by learned Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Ghumarwin, got mutation of the said land attested in his favour, vide mutation No. 30. Subsequently, on 15.12014, respondent No. 1 filed an appeal against the said order before the learned Collector, Sub-Division, Ghumarwin. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner had also moved an application for impleading him as a party in the partition proceedings, which was rejected by the learned AC 1st Grade, Ghumarwin vide order dated 18.12014. On 17.08.2015, the appeal preferred by respondent No. 1 has been allowed and order of mutation No. 30, dated 012014 was set aside and the case was remanded back to learned AC 2nd Grade, Ghumarwin to decide the same afresh. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner maintained an appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, which was allowed and vide order dated 29.04.2017, mutation No. 30 was confirmed. In the meantime, the petitioner has again moved an application, under Section 126 H.P. Land Revenue Act and Order 1, Rule 10 CPC to implead him as a party in the partition proceedings No. 21/9 of 2016, which was rejected by learned AC 1st Grade, Ghumarwin, vide order dated 204.2017. The petitioner challenged the said order before the learned Collector, Sub-Division Ghumarwin, which was also rejected vide order dated 09.08.2017. Hence the present petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.