A revision under section 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act is not maintainable against an order passed under section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972.

S. S Sidhu, I. A. S.—This is a reference made by the learned District Collector, Solan, under section 17 of H. P. Land Revenue Act, for reversing the order dated 22-3-1976 made by the Assistant Collector, II Grade, Kandaghat, on mutation No. 779 pertaining to village Dharyan, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan, in respect of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 4, 53 and 54, measuring 7-14 bighas, situated in village Dharyan.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as gathered from the order dated 26-11-1990 of the District Collector, Solan are that the Tehsildar, Kandaghat, paid a surprise visit to Patwar Kahana, Dharyan and also the record of his land reforms branch. He found that the case pertaining to aforesaid land was pending with the branch since 1983. The pendency could not be explained by the staff in the land reforms branch The land comprised in Khasra Nos. 4, 53 and 54, Kita 3, measuring 7-14 bighas was given on lease by the Gram Panchayat, Sakorf, vide resolution No. 16 dated 9-3-1968 to S/Shri Mathu and Sahabu, sons of Shri Gulabu, resident of village Dochi being landless. Since under section 3 of H P. Village Common Lands (Vesting and Utilization) Act, 1974 all the Shamlat lands in Himachal Pradesh were vested in the State of Himachal Pradesh, the learned Collector, Kandaghat Sub-Division, took up the case on 25-11-1982 at Chail in accordance with the provisions contained in section 4 of Act ibid. The learned Sub-Divisional Collector observed that the land in question has forcibly been occupied by the respondents and be further observed that S/Shri Mathu and Sahabu, the persons to whom the above mentioned land had been leased out by the Gram Panchayat, were evicted forcibly. It also came to his knowledge that the respondents had got proprietary rights of the land in question under section 104 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 vide mutation No. 779, sanctioned on 22-3-1976 pertaining to village Dharyan The learned Sub-Divisional Collector directed the Tehsildar to make out a case for the review of the above order since tenancy on Government land had wrongly been created.

3. The file, thereafter, is reported to have been sent by the Sub-Divisional Collector, Kandaghat to Tehsildar on 14-3-1983. On this, Naib Tehsildar, Kandaghat directed the Office Kanungo to put up the case alongwith the original mutation but it appears that no action was taken by the staff on the order of the Naib Tehsildar When the file came to the notice of Tehsildar on his surprise visit, he called for the copies of Jamabandi and mutation. On perusal of the record, it came to the notice of the Tehsildar that the respondents had been recorded as owners in the Jamabandi of village Dharyan for the year 1978-79. Since the Jamabandi entries could not be amended by way of review under section 16 of the H. P. Land Revenue Act, the Tehsildar suggested that the case be referred to the Financial Commissioner under section 17 of the H. P. Land Revenue Act. This is how the proceedings were started by the learned District Collector, Solan.

4. On receipt of the record, a show cause notice was issued to the respondents but they were not available on the given address. As such, the service was got affected by the learned Collector by way of pasting on the premises of the respondents. Since none turned up, the respondents were ordered to be proceeded ex pane. Later on, the learned Collector went through the lease file of the Sob-Divisional Collector, Kandaghat, report of the Tehsildar and also the copies of the relevant record brought on the file. The learned Collector came to the conclusion that the Gram Panchayat vide resolution No. 16 dated 9-3-1968 granted lease of the land in favour of S/Shri Mathu and Sahabu, sons of Shri Gulabu, village Dharyan, for agriculture purpose, The other thing which came to the notice was that the mutation No. 779 sanctioned on 22-3-1976 had wrongly been entered and attested. The learned District Collector