Sh. P. MITRA., IAS - This revision petition is directed against the order of the deputy commissioner hamirpur district exercising the powers of commissioner passed in case no 94/2000 dated 6.8.2002 whereby the revision petition of the present petitioner was dismissed

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Shri Jai Chand son of Shri Duni Chand, resident of Burnwar, Tappa Bajuri, Tehsil & Distt. Hamirpur was reported to be unheard of and his whereabouts not known to his near and dear ones for the last 50 year and therefore he was presumed to be dead. A mutation no. 252 was entered for transferring the land of Shri Jai Chand to his legal heirs but the mutation was rejected by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade on 26.6.1991 on the grounds that none of the legal heirs of Shri Jai Chand were present nor was it proved that Shri Jai Chand was unheard of or civilly dead.

Against this order Smt. Sukhan Devi predecessor-in-interest of present respondents no. 9 to 11 through their GPA Shri Rosan Lal present petitioner had filed an appeal before the Collector Hamirpur sub-division on 30.3.1992. The Collector, after hearing the parties, rejected/ dismissed the appeal being time arred and also holding that Shri Jai Chand was not declared civilly dead. Still aggrieved, the present petitioner who was attorney of Smt Sukhan Devi, filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Mandi division which was later transferred to Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur district (who was vested with the powers of commissioner on a bolltion of the posts of commissioners in the state at that time). The Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur district (as Commissioner) also dismissed the petition vide the impugned order. Hence, this second revision petition.

3. Arguments on behalf of the petitioner and respondents no. 2(b), 3 and 4 had been heard through their counsels. Rest of the respondents had been proceeded against ex-parte during the proceedings. Learned counsel for petitioner had argued that in this case, the estate of Shri Jai Chand is involved and the said Shri Jai Chand is unheard for the last more than 60 years. In para 7 of the revision petition, it has been submitted that the Revenue officer was legally bound to sanction mutation as warranted under the law as it was found y the Tehsildar that Shri Jai Chand was unheard for the last more than 55 years by his relations, friends and covillagers but in the present case no proper opportunity has been provided by the Assistant Collector to the petitioner to represent his case; the other party abused the process of law and the order is without jurisdiction and is not based on the facts of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the present petitioner has not been heard by the Assistant Collector while rejecting the mutation; in a mutation of inheritance, the Assistant Collector is bound to issue notice ·to all concerned/intended persons; when petitioner came to know the situation, he filed the appeal but the appeal was dismissed as time barred. According to learned counsel, no enquiry was conducted and no opportunity was given.

4. Learned counsel further stated that the Deputy Commissioner exercising the powers of Commissioner, also dismissed the revision as time barred. He cited the case 'Smt Bontu & another vi s Shri Sarju Singh & another' (SLC 1978 pages 151). He argued that the appeal should not have been dismissed in such an unreasonable manner; it has caused miscarriage of justice and the impugned order is based on surmises and conjectures. According to him, the law is very liberal and the delay should have been condoned. In support of his contention on delay, he referred the judgments in case (i) 'Shri Partap Singh v/s State of Haryana [PLJ 1979 page 48], (ii) 'Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantang v/s Shri Kaliji' [AIR 1987 page, 1353], (iii) 'Harish Chandra v/s Dy. L.A. Officer & another' [AIR 1961 SC page 1500], (iv) 'Shri Paras Ram v/s Shri Lachman & Ors' [SLC 1995(1},