Back
2012 Supreme(HP) 132
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAJIV SHARMA, J.
Dhani Ram - Petitioner
Versus
Financial Commissioner (Appeals) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla
Rajmal - Respondents
CWP No.4922 of 2011-E
Decided On : 7.5.2012
For the petitioner:Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy.AG. for respondent No.1.
Mr. Abhishek Barowalia, Advocate for respondent No.2.
The findings of the civil court are binding on revenue authorities, and the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act governs land ownership and possession disputes.
Headnote:
Land Dispute - H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act - [H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act] - [Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a civil suit for declaration of exclusive possession over a land, which was contested by respondent No.2 claiming ownership under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. The trial court and appellate court ruled in favor of respondent No.2. The petitioner sought mutation of land records, which was initially allowed but later overturned by the Collector and higher authorities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the civil court's decisions were binding on the revenue authorities, and the petitioner's claim for exclusive possession was not upheld. The court dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: Dispute over land possession, jurisdiction of civil court, mutation of land records, and applicability of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The findings of the civil court were held binding on the revenue authorities, and the petitioner's claim for exclusive possession was not supported by the evidence.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
1. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that petitioner had instituted civil suit in the court of Sub Judge 1st Class (1), Kangra bearing Civil Suit No.134 of 1988 for declaration to the effect that he was in exclusive possession as co-owner over the land comprising Khata No. 120/min/110 Red Harra, Khatauni No. 228, Khasra No. 413 measuring 0-11-96 hectares. According to him, entry made in favour of respondent No.2 as Gair Maurushi tenant over this khasra number was contrary to the spot position. According to him, the same was liable to be changed in his favour. Suit was contested by respondent No.2. According to him, he was in possession of the suit land, including other khasra numbers and has become owner in possession of the suit land after the enactment of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. Learned trial court framed the following issues on 16.11.1988:
1. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit? OPD.
2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD.
3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD.
4. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD.
5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD.
6. Whether the defendant is in possession of the suit land since long and has become owner of the same by virtue of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reform Act? OPD.
7. Whether the plaintiff is in exclusive possession of the suit land as co-owner as alleged? OPP.
8. Whether the entry in favour of the defendant No.1 as Gair Marushi in the revenue record is unauthorized, illegal and not binding on the plaintiff as alleged? OPP.
8-A. Whether the suit is time barred and as such is liable to be dismissed OPD.
9. Relief.
2. Trial Court on issues No. 7 and 8 held that the petitioner has failed to prove the exclusive possession of the suit land and that the entry in the revenue record was illegal; unauthorized and was liable to be erased. These two issues were decided against the petitioner and in favour of respondent No.2. As far as issue No.6 is concerned, learned Sub Judge 1st Class held that respondent No.2 was in possession of the suit land and has become owner by virtue of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. Leaned Sub Judge 1st Class dismissed the suit preferred by the petitioner on 31.7.1990. He preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Kangra bearing Civil Appeal No. 75/1991. The same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 28.4.1993. Thereafter, petitioner moved an application before the Land Reforms Officer, Kangra on 26.10.1994. The same was transferred to the L.R.O. Shahpur in the year 1997. He passed the order in favour of the petitioner on 27.9.1999 vide Annexure P-1.
Petitioner had also filed Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.4.1993 bearing R.S.A. No. 219/1993. The same was dismissed by this Court on 3.11.1999.
3. It will be pertinent to note at this stage that on the basis of order passed by the L.R.O. Shahpur dated 27.9.1999, mutation No. 826 was attested in favour of the petitioner on 28.12.1999. Respondent No.2 preferred an appeal assailing the order dated 27.9.1999 and attestation of mutation on 28.12.1999 before the Collector (A.D.M.) by appeal No. 118/2000. The same was allowed by him on 8.7.2002. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner by way of appeal No. 193/2002. The Divisional Commissioner dismissed the same on 28.9.2010. The revision preferred by the petitioner before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) bearing Revision Petition No. 29/2011 was also dismissed on 3.6.2011.
4. Mr. Sanjay Jaswal has strenuously argued that the order passed by the Financial Commissioner dated 3.6.2011 is contrary to law. He has supported the order passed by the L.R.O. dated 27.9.1999 on the basis of which mutation was attes
