KULDEEP SINGH Vs. GHORKHU (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the decision dated 25.9.2001 of the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra district (exercising the powers of Commissioner). Since this is no provision for appeal under Section 14 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, this was treated as revision under Section 17 of the Act ibid.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Dharamshala had attested mutation No. 509 on 20.12.1989 in respect of conferment of proprietary rights under Section 104(3) of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 upon one Shri Kali Dass who was recorded as non -occupancy tenant under S/Shri Khemdi, Isher, Parshotam, Smt. Sati, Smt. Savitri and Shri Godan (hereinafter called Shri Khemdi Etc.) co -owners of the land in dispute. In fact the land in dispute was owned by some others also apart from Shri Khemdi Etc. After the death of Shri Kali Dass, another mutation No. 514 was attested on 19.1.1990 by the Assistant Collector transferring the ownership of Shri Kali Dasss land in favour of his mother Smt. Keshari Devi, appellant No. 2 by way of inheritance.

(3.) DURING arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioners stated that this was an appeal under Section 14 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act which may be treated as revision heard/decided by the Sub Judge Kangra on 5.6.1997 which concluded that the mutation No. 509 in favour of Shri Kali Dass was wrong/illegal; the petitioners had thereafter appealed to the District Judge who set aside the judgment of the lower Court on 16.12.1999. Shri Gorkhu then went to the Honble High Court which dismissed his RSA. Thus the High Court had accepted the position of the petitioners. The mutation in favour of Kali Dass was valid as ownership rights stood automatically transferred under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. On the other hand, the Commissioner has totally ignored the judgment of the Honble High Court. Learned Counsel drew attention to the well established law that the judgment of the civil courts will prevail. Secondly there is no time limit involved in such cases which are governed by the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act.