The central legal point established in the judgment is the unchallenged authority of the Assistant Collector to pass orders under Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, and the need for parties to resort to available remedies under the Act.

ORDER :

Brijesh Kumar, J. - The present appeal is against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissing the revision petition preferred by the appellant in a proceeding for execution of decree.

2. The case seems to have some chequered history and vexed facts but we feel for the disposal of this matter it will not be necessary to go into the details. It appears that originally the agricultural land in dispute was held by one Hari Ram. After his death, his wife Smt Phulman executed a patta in favour of Nauranga who came to occupy the land in capacity as a tenant thereof. The aforesaid patta was executed sometime in 1946. Later, however, sometime in 1948, one Rambhu claiming as one of the reversioners, being the son of the daughter of Hari Ram, filed a suit saying that patta executed by Smt Phulman in favour of Nauranga would not be binding on the reversioners. The suit was decreed and the appeal preferred therefrom was also dismissed. Phulman and Nauranga are also said to be parties to the aforesaid litigation.

3. Thereafter in 1962 Jai Kishen, one of the heirs of Hari Ram filed a suit against Badri Lal and other sons of Nauranga claiming possession of the land in question, apparently on the ground that the patta executed by Smt Phulman in favour of Nauranga had been held to be not binding on the reversioners by means of the decree passed in the suit filed by Rambhu. The suit was dismissed in 1967 but the first appeal preferred by the plaintiff, namely, Jai Kishen was allowed on 7-9-1968. The appeal against the order passed by the first appellate court was dismissed. A special leave petition was filed in this Court. This Court granted the leave and Civil Appeal No. 122 (N) of 1974 was dismissed by this Court on 1-4-19871. It appears that Badri Lal had died in the meantime hence it was filed by his legal heirs and other surviving parties. Jai Kishen and Ram Lal were the respondents in the abovesaid appeal. A perusal of the order passed by this Court dated 1-4-1987 indicates that the centre of controversy related to the effect and implication of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act on the rights of Smt Phulman and those in whose favour she has executed the patta.

4. In the meantime, yet another development took place and the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 was enacted (Act 8 of 1974) and enforced in 1974 making provisions about the rights of the landholders and reforms relating to agricultural land in the State of H.P. Section 104 of the Act falls in Chapter X particularly dealing with the rights which are acquired by the occupants of the land. The appellants before us moved the authorities concerned, namely, the Assistant Collector under Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act and an order in their favour was passed by the Assistant Collector conferring rights of occupancy tenants upon them.

5. In the year 1988, proceedings for execution of the decree were initiated by Smt Krishna Devi, d/o Jai Kishen D.H. and his son Ved Parkash and others. Objections also seem to have been preferred against the execution by Girdhari Lal and others, namely, the LRs and the descendants of Nauranga but they were dismissed by the execution court by order dated 25-5-1988. Ultimately the matter was taken to the High Court in Civil Revision No. 100 of 1988 which was dismissed on 22-8-1988, and it is the subject-matter and impugned order in the present appeal. The revision petition was preferred by Jai Dev, s/o Badri Lal who was the son of Nauranga. Smt Krishna Devi, w/o Jai Kishen and his sons and others were the respondents who had obtained the decree against Badri Lal and others. It also transpires that in the meantime earlier appeal in this Court, namely, CA No. 122 of 1974, Girdharilal v. Jaikishan, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 292 was decided on 1-4-1987. An application for contempt was also moved on behalf of Jai Kishen and other respondents in that appeal for initiating proceedings for contempt of court a