Back
2017 Supreme(HP) 336
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
Chetan Swaroop - Petitioner
Versus
Girdhari Lal & others - Respondents
CWP No. 8203 of 2011
Decided On : 03-05-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kumar Sood, Mr. Anirudh Nadda
For the Respondents: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Ms. Kusum Chaudhary, Mr. Vikram Thakur, Mr. Puneet Rajta
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for an order to be passed by a Revenue Officer as defined under the H.P. Land Revenue Act for the applicability of appeal and revision provisions under the Act.
Headnote:
H.P. Land Revenue Act - Jurisdiction - Section 17 - Section 14 - Section 4(17) - The court quashed the impugned order passed by the revisional authority under Section 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, emphasizing that the original order was not passed by a Revenue Officer as defined under the Act, and therefore, no appeal or revision was maintainable under the Act. The court referred to the provisions of Section 14 and Section 4(17) to establish the lack of jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner, ultimately allowing the writ petition and permitting the respondents to challenge the original order before the appropriate forum.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash an order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, contending that the order lacked jurisdiction as it was not passed by a Revenue Officer defined under the Act. The original order appointed the petitioner as Kardar of a temple, and the respondent appealed the order, leading to a series of adjudications.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order lacked jurisdiction as the original order was not passed by a Revenue Officer as defined under the H.P. Land Revenue Act. Citing precedent, the court quashed the impugned order and allowed the writ petition, while permitting the respondents to challenge the original order before the appropriate forum.
Issues: The key issue was the jurisdiction of the impugned order passed under Section 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, based on the original order not being passed by a Revenue Officer as defined under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of Section 14 and Section 4(17) of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, which defined the appellate jurisdiction and the definition of a Revenue Officer, respectively. The lack of jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner in passing the original order was emphasized, leading to the quashing of the impugned order.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and clarified that the respondents could challenge the original order before the appropriate forum.
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
By way of this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing of impugned order dated 6.9.2011 (Annexure P-6), passed in revision petition No. 116 of 2011 by Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh in exercise of powers conferred under Section 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act on the ground that the said order has been passed by the Authority concerned without any jurisdiction.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present case are that an order dated 7.9.2009 (Annexure P-3) was passed by District Collector, Kullu in the matter of appointment of Kardar of Devta Markandai Rishi and Devi Bala Durga of Phati Balagad, Kothi Shikari, Tehsil Banjar, District Kullu. By way of this order, which was passed by the District Collector, Kullu in performance of his duties as enshrined under the Wajib Ul Arj, he appointed the present petitioner i.e. Chetan Swaroop @ Chuni Lal as Kardar of Devta Markandai Rishi and Devi Bala Durga of Phati Balagad, Kothi Shikari, Tehsil Banjar, District Kullu.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the present respondent assailed the same by preferring an appeal under Section 14 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act before Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. Learned Divisional Commissioner, in his wisdom, adjudicated the said appeal on merit and dismissed the appeal so filed by the present respondent, vide order dated 15.5.2010, Annexure P-5. Order passed by learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi was thereafter assailed by the present respondent by way of revision petition No. 116 of 2011 filed under Section 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act before Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh. Revision petition so filed by the present respondent was allowed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), vide order dated 6.9.2011, which stands assailed by way of present writ petition.
4. Mr. Ajay Kumar Sood, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, while relying upon the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 4824 of 2009, titled as Mandir Committee (Adhoc) versus Chain Sukh & others, decided on 24.12.2015, has submitted that the impugned order passed by the revisional authority i.e. Financial Commissioner (Appeals) is not sustainable in the eyes of law, because while passing the said order, the revisional authority failed to appreciate that the impugned original order before it i.e. order passed by District Collector, Kullu was not an order passed by District Collector while exercising his powers conferred under the provisions of H.P. Land Revenue Act, therefore, neither any appeal nor any revision was maintainable against it under the provisions of H.P. Land Revenue Act.
5. Mr. Bimal Gupta, learned senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that in the said eventuality, the present respondent cannot be remediless and he may be permitted to assail the original orders passed by the District Collector, Kullu before the appropriate forum.
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the pleadings of the parties.
7. It is not in dispute that the original order dated 7.9.2009, which was passed by the District Collector, Kullu was not passed by him in his capacity as a Revenue Officer defined under the provisions of H.P. Land Revenue Act and under Land Revenue Act, only an order passed by a Revenue Officer can be challenged. Incidentally, Subject matter of present writ petition in fact is no more res-integra. This Court in CWP No. 4824 of 2009, titled as Mandir Committee (Adhoc) versus Chain Sukh & others has categorically held as under:
“4. Though it is contended by the petitioner that there are more, however, it is not in dispute that at least one of the Hariyans i.e. the followers, made out a grievance of misconduct against the sitting Kardar (respondent No.1) of the temple. As per inquiry report (Annexure P-5), the Sub Divisional Officer (C), Kullu found the allegations of misappropriation of property to be wel
