Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL
Om Parkash – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
1. By way of this writ petition, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners assailed order dated 14.11.2001, passed by the learned Financial Commissioner on the recommendations made by the learned Divisional Commissioner, in terms whereof, learned Divisional Commissioner recommended the acceptance of the revision filed before it and the remand of the matter back to the Tehsildar by setting aside the order passed by the Land Reforms Officer dated 08.08.1996.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that one Saran Dass presented an application on 18.05.1991 before Assistant Collector 1st Grade Nadaun, in terms whereof, a prayer was made that necessary correction be carried out in the revenue entries in Khasra Girdawari in respect of land comprised in Khata No.39 min Khatauni No.44, Khasra No.76 measuring 39 Kanals 02 Marlas, as entered in Jamabandi for the years 1985-86, situated in village Doligharana, Tappa Kohla, Tehsil Nadaun on the ground that he was in sole cultivating possession of the said land from the time of his ancestors as tenant, paying rent to the Raja of Nadaun. As per Saran Dass, the Settlement Operation of th
The Land Reforms Officer lacks jurisdiction to alter long-standing revenue records without legal justification, and disputes should be resolved based on actual possession.
Defendant had also specifically averred that he had taken recourse to legal proceedings under provisions of H.P. Land Revenue Act and H.P. Tenancy of Land Reforms Act for correction of revenue entrie....
The application seeking rectification of records under Section 26 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act was not maintainable as it sought to modify entries made prior to 1947-48 consolidation, and the provis....
Section 26 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act cannot be invoked to correct entries made prior to 1947-48, as it would infringe on substantive rights protected under earlier consolidations.
Right of hearing is a valuable right given to a person whose rights are being affected by proposed action of any judicial or quasi-judicial authority.
The Assistant Collector lacked jurisdiction to confer proprietary rights under the Tenancy Act, and fraudulent actions in mutation proceedings are void.
Judicial review under Article 226 is limited to procedural irregularities; the court does not act as an appellate authority over quasi-judicial decisions unless glaring errors are present.
The court upheld the legality of mutation under Section 121 of the Land Revenue Act and emphasized the importance of proper authority in attesting mutations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
