Point of Law: Provisions of Limitation Act, same cannot apply to the facts of instant case, which is otherwise covered and required to be determined in terms of Sections 35 to 41 of Act.

ORDER :

The plaintiff filed a suit No. 262/1 of 86, in the court of learned Sub Judge, Theog, which was decreed as per compromise vide judgment and decree dated 18.3.1987. However, it appears that thereafter respondent No.3 started disputing the judgment and decree constraining the petitioner to submit an application before the revenue authorities seeking entry of mutation, incorporating therein judgment and decree.

2. The Tehsildar, Theog, rejected the application, that too, by issuing a letter dated 17.6.2021, relevant text whereof reads as under:-

^^fo"k; mijksDr ij vkils ÁkIr vkosnu i= fnukad 24-09-2020 ds lUnHkZ esa lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd vkius ekuuh; U;k;ky; lc tt fB;ksx }kjk ikfjr vkns'k ckn la[;k 262@1 vkWQ 1906 fnukad 18-03-1967 yxHkx vLlk 34 o"kZ ckn ÁLrqr fd, gSA ftlls ;g Li"V gS fd fu;ekuqlkj budh oS/krk lekIr gks pqdh gSA lkFk gh] bl vof/k esa dbZ ckj jktLo vfHkys[k dk uohuhdj.k fd;k tk pqdk gSA blds vfrfjDr Jh nhijke 'kekZ iq= Lo- Jh vkRek jke 'kekZ fuoklh xkao nkoM+k] rglhy fB;ksx] ftyk f'keyk }kjk Hkh mDr vkns'kksa dk vey u djus ckjs viuk vkosnu bl dk;kZy; esa ÁLrqr fd;k x;k gSA bl Ádkj orZeku esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; lc tt fB;ksx ds }kjk ikfjr vkns'k okn la[;k 262@1 vkWQ 1986 fnukad 18-03-1987 dk vey jktLo vfHkys[k esa fd;k tkuk okftc u gS fQj Hkh ;fn vki mDr vkns'k dk vey jktLo vfHkys[k esa djokuk pkgrs gS rks vkidks lq>ko fn;k tkrk gS fd vki l{ke ekuuh; U;k;ky; ls bl ckjs uohu vkns’k ÁkIr dj bl dk;kZy; esa ÁLrqr djsaA**

3. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation requesting the Tehsildar to pass an order in accordance with law, however, the Tehsildar did not respond, constraining him to file the instant petition for grant of following substantive reliefs :

“1. That the impugned letter dated 17.6.2021 (Annexure P-8) may be held illegal and hence may be quashed and set aside.

2. That the respondent No. 2 may be directed to enter mutation in the revenue record in terms of the application Annexure P-3 filed by the petitioner.

4. Respondent No.3 has contested the petition by filing reply, wherein factum of the judgment and decree has not been denied, however it is claimed that since the claim of the petitioner is barred by limitation, as prescribed under article 136 of the Limitation Act, therefore, the revenue authorities were well within their right in rejecting the request made by the petitioner for attestation of mutation.

5. In addition to above, respondent No. 3 has also sought to draw support from paras 8.1 to 8.57 and 8.63 of the H.P. Land Records Manual to contend that the application submitted by the petitioner for attestation of mutation after such a long lapse of time was rightly rejected by the revenue authorities.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material placed on record.

7. In order to answer the question, as raised in this petition, it would be relevant to refer to Sections 35, 39 and 40 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954, (for short, “the Act”) which are reproduced as under:-

“35. Making of that part of the 8[periodical] record which relates to land owners [etc.] assignees of revenue and occupancy tenants.-

(1) Any person acquiring by inheritance, purchase, mortgage, gift or otherwise, any right in an estate as a land-owner [etc.] assignee of land revenue, or tenant having a right of occupancy, shall report his acquisition of the right to the patwari of the estate.

(2) If the person acquiring the right is a minor or otherwise disqualified, his guardian or other person having charge of his property shall make the report to the Patwari.

(3) The Patwari shall enter in his register of mutations every report made to him under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) and shall also make an entry therein respecting the acquisition of any such rights as aforesaid which he has reasons to believe to have taken place, and of which a report should have been made to him under one or other of those sub-sections and has not been so made.

(4) No Revenue Court shall entertain a