The main legal point established in the judgment is that findings of the Civil Court are binding on the Revenue Court, and revenue records confer no title on the party.

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.

LPA No.67 of 2014:

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 20th June, 2013, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, in writ petition, being CWP No.5080 of 2010, titled Kaul Singh versus State of H.P. and others, whereby the order made by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, exercising the powers under Section 54 of the H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971, (for short, the Act), in Revision Petition No.913/2009, titled Jai Singh vs. Kaul Singh, came to be set aside, (for short, the impugned judgment).

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the writ petitioner Kaul Singh, (respondent No.3 herein), invoked the jurisdiction of the Writ Court by the medium of the writ petition, questioning the order made by the Divisional Commissioner (respondent No.2 herein), whereby the Revision Petition filed by the appellant/writ respondent was allowed.

3. It is apt to reproduce operative portion of the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, hereunder

“In view of the observations made above, the revision petition is accepted to the extent that Kh.No.443 land measuring 0-04-11 bigha be allotted to the petitioner and 1/4 share from Khasra No.439, 440, 441, 442 and 462 kita 5 total land measuring 0-17-06 i.e. 0-04-07 bigha be allotted to the respondent. A Copy of this order be sent to the Tehsildar Sadar, District Mandi for compliance. …………………”

4. Against this order of the Divisional Commissioner, the writ petitioner Kaul Singh filed the writ petition, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment and the order of the Divisional Commissioner was set aside.

5. Feeling aggrieved, writ respondent No.3 Jai Singh has filed the instant appeal against the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.

6. Admittedly, the consolidation proceedings were started in the year 1992-93 and concluded in the year 1997. The appellant Jai Singh invoked the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities after a lapse of around 12 years, i.e. in the year 2009 by filing a revision petition. Without considering the factum of delay and laches and other aspects of the case, the Divisional Commissioner ordered rectification in the revenue entries in terms of the order reproduced supra.

7. The question is - Whether the Divisional Commissioner, exercising powers under the Act, was competent to make the order, which was barred by delay and laches? The answer is in the negative for the following reasons.

8. The Writ Court has examined the entire record while discussing the said issue and has rightly held that the Divisional Commissioner has fallen in error and has committed grave injustice while allowing the Revision Petition for the reason that the revision petitioner (appellant herein) has remained in deep slumber and has not questioned the proceedings concluded in the year 1997 for a considerable long period and what were the reasons for not questioning the same have not been spelled out in the revision petition. He has not been able to carve out a case for condonation of delay not to speak of sufficient cause.

9. Limitation period is not prescribed for exercising the revisional jurisdiction, but it can be exercised “at any stage”. The Apex Court right from 1950 has discussed what does words “at any stage” mean in catena of judgments, which have been discussed by the learned Single Judge in paragraphs No.14 to 18 of the impugned judgment. Ratio laid down in those decisions has been applied by the learned Single Court and has rightly allowed the writ petition.

10. It is worthwhile to mention here that Kaul Singh had filed a Civil Suit seeking the relief of permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction against the appellant Jai Singh and one Bhup Singh qua the property in dispute. Jai Singh and Bhup Singh (defendants) resisted the suit by filing written statements. The suit was decreed partly against Jai Singh, who challenged the same before the District Jud