Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 8046
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Ajay Mohan Goel, J
Dharam Chand & others – Appellant
Versus
The Collector, Sub-Division, Dharamshala, & others – Respondent
CMPMO No.77 of 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Surinder Saklani
For the Respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Ajay Sharma, Tarun Brakta
Statutory remedies must be exhausted before approaching the court; failure to do so renders the petition non-maintainable.
Headnote:(A) Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Land Revenue Act - Sections 14 and 17 - Petition challenging the Collector's order - Petitioners sought to quash an interlocutory order claiming it's illegal and perverse - Court found statutory remedies were not exhausted - Petition was dismissed with liberty to pursue legal remedies as per law. (Paras 4-10)
(B) Appeal - Right to Appeal - Court held that the existence of a statutory remedy prohibits interference with the non-final order - Proper forum should be used to address grievances regarding interlocutory orders. (Paras 6-9)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the Collector's order allowing stay on proceedings, claiming irreparable loss. The Collector's stay was questioned based on statutory provisions available for appeals.
Findings of Court:
The Court determined that the petition was not maintainable due to the absence of exhausting all statutory remedies provided to the petitioners.
Issues: Whether the petition was maintainable without exhausting statutory remedies concerning the impugned order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petition was not maintainable, emphasizing the importance of following statutory procedures before seeking judicial remedy.
Result: Petition dismissed with liberty to pursue alternative remedies.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction and maintainability of petitions regarding interlocutory orders (Para 2) |
| 2. statutory procedures and remedies should precede judicial actions (Para 3) |
| 3. outcome and implications of the court’s decision on the petition (Para 4 , 10) |
None for remaining respondents. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:-
“(a) That impugned order dated 24.09.2019 as contained in Annexure P-2 (Colly) being illegal and perverse, may very kindly be quashed and set aside, to secure the ends of law and justice.”
2. Impugned order dated 24.09.2019, is passed by the Collector, Sub-Divisional, Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., which
reads as under:-
“Case called. Present. Case was filed for 26.11.2019. Taken up today due to application for preponement filed by the applicant Counsel and prayed for staying the operation of impugned order dated 18/06/2018. There is prima facie a case in four off the appellant and appellant may suffer an irreparable loss if stay is not granted. The balance of convenience also seems to be fall in favour of the appellant. In vtiew of the above averments application u/o 41, Rule 5 CPC is allowed. The operation of impugned order dated 18/06/2018 is stayed till next date of hearing, 26.11.2019.
3. The response that has been filed to the present proceedings by the State demonstrates that the stay was granted by the Collector was only till the next date of hearing and thereafter, the same was not extended.
4. Be that as it may, in light of the fact that the petitioners Happroached this Court against an order passed by the Collector, this Court is of the considered view that this petition is not maintainable as the petitioners had statutory remedy, which was not exhausted.
5. Section 14 of the Land Revenue Act provides as under:-
“14. Appeals.- Save as otherwise provided by this Act, an appeal shall lie from original or appellate order of a Revenue Officer as follows, namely:-
(a) to the Collector when the order is made by an Assistant Collector of either grade; (b) to the Commissioner 1[*****] when the order is made by a Collector; .
(c) to the Financial Commissioner when the order is made by the Commissioner:
Provided that –
(i) when an orioginal order is confirmed on first appeal, a further appeal shall not lie;
(ii) when any such order is modified or reversed on appealr by the Collector, the order made by the Cuommissioner on further appeal, if any, to him shall be final.”
6. Section 17 of the Land Revenue Act provides as under:-
“17. Power to call for, examine and revise proceedings of Revenue Officers. (1)The Financial Commissioner may at hany time call for the record of any case pending before [or disposed of by] [Inserted by section 3 of HP. Act of
1955.] any Revenue Officer subordinate to him.
i (2) A commissioner or Collector may call for the record of any case pending before, or disposed of by, any Revenue Officer under his control.
(3) If any case in which a Commissioner or Collector has called for a record he is of opinion that the proceedings taken or order made should be modified or reversed, he shall report the case with his opinion thereon for the orders of the Financial Commissioner.
(4) The Financial Commissioner may in any case called for by himself under sub-section (1) or reported to him under sub-section (3) pass such order as he thinks fit:Provided that he shall not under this section pass an order reversing or modifying any procee.ding or order of a subordinate Revenue Officer and effecting any question of right between private persons without giving those persons an opportunity of being heard.”
7. Learned Counsel foro the petitioners though has vehemently submitted that because the impugned order was just an interlocutory order and the Authority could not have passed the same withou
