By the Court. - This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 114 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act against an order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Shimla in appeal No. 127/98 decided on 29.09.1999.

2. Brief facts of the case are that one Sh. Dhani Ram was recorded as a non-occupancy tenant over land comprised in khata khatoni No. 35/57 kita 59 measuring 254.01 Bighas situated in village Mehando-Bagh, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmour. Shri Geeta Ram the present petitioner was recorded as a non occupancy tenant to place of Shri Dhani Ram in the Jamabandi for the year 1967-68. He later filed an application under Section 11 of the H.P. Abolition of Big Landed Estates Act before the Compensation Officer Pachhad for acquiring ownership rights over the said land. The Compensation Officer allowed the application to the extent of 196.13 bighas on 07.02.1969. The State Government filed an appeal against the order before the District Judge, Sirmour who remanded the matter to the Compensation Officer. The District Compensation Officer, Sirmour then decided the matter on 31.03.1973 allowing Shri Geeta Ram ownership over 33.18 bighas of land only. Sh. Geeta Ram again filed an application on 21.08.1976 before the Land Reforms Officer for conferment of proprietary rights over the entire land measuring 254.01 Bighas which was allowed and the land was mutated vide mutation No. 96 dated 01.04.1977 in favour of Sh. Geeta Ram, Sh. Bhoj Raj and others filed a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division, who transferred the case to the Deputy Commissioner, Sirmour on the grounds that a revision against the order of the Land Reforms Officer does not lie to the Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner, exercising the powers of Collector set aside the mutation order dated 01.04.1977 on 08.06.1998, further directing the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Pachhad to vest 220.03 Bighas in the name of the Government, Sh. Geeta Ram filed an appeal before the Commissioner Shimla Division, who rejected the same on 29.09.1999 and hence the present revision petition has been filed before this Court.

3. The record of the Courts below was called for and examined. The arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties were heard.

4. Shri Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the petitioner/Shri Geeta Ram, argued that on coming into force of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. Shri Geeta Ram, who was recorded as a non-occupancy tenant over 254-01 bighas of land in the jamabandi, applied under the Act for the conferment of proprietary rights under Section 104 of the Act ibid. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade passed a detailed order on 01.04.1977 regarding the conferment of proprietary rights in favour of the petitioner. When the matter was heard before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade it was stated on behalf of the State of H.P. that there was no objection to the grant of the proprietary rights and on this basis mutation No. 95 was attested. Several years after the event i.e. in 1996 one Shri Bhoj Raj preferred a revision petition before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla under Section 114 read with Section 65 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, assailing the order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sirmour on 01.04.1977 regarding the conferment of the proprietary rights in favour of the petitioner. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed for condoning the delay. Without issuing any notice to the State of H.P. and without condoning the delay, the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla sent the file to the Collector to decide the same as the Divisional Commissioner did not have power to hear the revision petition against the order passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade. Shri Bhoj Raj was also advised to file an appeal before the Collector. The Collector allowed the appeal on 08.06.1998 and decided the case against Shri Geeta Ra