The acquisition of proprietary rights under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 is not affected by subsequent sale transactions within a period of 10 years.

1. This matter has been recommended by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra who, while adjudicating upon appeal No 149/92 has treated the same as a revision petition since proviso (1) of section 14 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 under which the appeal had been filed before the Ld. Commissioner bars a second appeal in cases where an original order is confirmed on first appeal. The learned Commissioner has recommended that sanction order dated 9.12.1998 passed by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Nurpur on mutation No. 19 of Up Mohal" Rampuri, Tehsil Nurpur vide which proprietary rights of land entered therein were conferred upon the present petitioners S/Shri Saran Dass and Tara Chand, sons of Shri Raj Nath may be restored.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Assistant Collector, Second Grade, Nurpur attested mutation No. 19 of Up Mohal Rampuri, Tehsil Nurpur vide which proprietary rights of land entered therein were conferred upon the present petitioners S/Shri Saran Dass and Tara Chand, son of Shri Raj Nath on 9.12.1988. Later, The Assistant Collector, IInd Grade reviewed the said order of sanction on 23.7.1990 after obtaining a permission to review the same. This order dated 23.7.1990 was challenged in appeal before the Collector, Settlement, Kangra by the petitioners but the learned Collector Settlement dismissed the appeal on 4.10.1991. The petitioners then filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner Kangra who treated the same, as a revision petition and has observed vide decision dated 20.2.1995 that though it is correct that the land over which proprietary rights have been obtained cannot be transferred further by way of sale, gift mortgage or otherwise till a period ten years from the date from which the rights are so acquired but this does not mean that if such a sale is made by the person upon whom the proprietary rights have been conferred, the original mutation conferring the rights too can be obliterated or reversed as has been done by the Assistant Collector and upheld by the Settlement Collector in the instant case.

3. I have perused the record as received from the Commissioner and have also heard the arguments advanced by the Id. Counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner stressed that the recommendation of the learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra made vide his order dated 20.2.1995 be accepted. Mutation No. 19 was not required to be reviewed by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade. Only the alleged sale transaction would not be affected in the revenue record as the same was void.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the present petitioners were never inducted as tenant on the suit land. The order allowing the review was never challenged by the present petitioner and therefore he could not challenge the reversal of mutation No. 19.

5. Perusal of the record shows that mutation No. 19 was never challenged by the present respondents. However, with the conferment .of proprietary rights in respect of the suit land on the petitioner the present respondent’s interest in the land ceased to exist and they had no further locus standi in the matter.

6. The learned Divisional Commissioner has rightly observed in his order dated 20.2.1995 that sale of the land within a period of 10 years from the acquiring proprietary rights is a void transaction and cannot be given effect in the revenue record. However, that has no effect on the previous acquisition of proprietary rights under Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms, Act, 1972. Hence, the order of the Assistant Collector, reviewing mutation No. 19 was incorrect in law. The recommendation of the learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra vide his order dated 20.2.1995 is accepted and the order of the Settlement Collector according permission for review as well as the order of the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade dated 23.7.1990 reviewing mutation No. 19, are set aside. Announced in the open court today the 17.7.