RAJINDER SINGH Vs. JARAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri Rajinder Singh and five others have filed this revision petition against the order dated 27 -3 -1985 of the Sub -Divisional Collector, Chamba.

(2.) The facts of the case briefly stated are that Shri Man Singh, pro -forma respondent, Shri Rajinder Singh and other petitioners are owners of land measuring 17 -8 bighas, comprised in Khasra Nos 177, 183 83 186 188, 211, 250. 284, 1106/310, 469, 470, 473, 885 and 885/1 /situated in village Kariyan, Tehsil and District Chamba. On the death of Shri Bhilo, who had been recorded as non -occupancy tenant, Mutation No. 502 was attested by the Assistant Collector, II Grade on 12 -1M98G, whereby he conferred the proprietary rights upon S/Shri Jaram Singh and Dalip Singh sons of Shri Bhilo and present respondents. Since the order was passed behind the back of the land owners, on objections of the petitioners, the order on Mutation No 502 was reviewed by the Assistant Collector, II Grade vide his order dated 15 -6 -1983 whereby he cancelled the mutation. The present respondents felt aggrieved by this order dated 15 -6 -1983 and filed an appeal before the Sub -Divisional Collector, Chamba, who set aside this order and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector II Grade, Chamba vide his order dated 27 -3 -1985. Feeling dissatisfied by the order of the Sub -Divisional Collector, the petitioners have come in revision before us.

(3.) I have gone through the record of the case and have also heard the arguments adduced by the learned Counsel on both the sides. The learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that they had no knowledge about the order passed by the learned Sub -Divisional Collector till 17 -8 -1988. They have also taken the plea that the Sub -Divisional Collector erred in law in affecting service by proclamation in Rajpatra which is neither proper mode of service nor legally permissible. They have also taken the objection that the appeal filed by the respondents before the Sub -Divisional Collector was barred by limitation. Another ground taken by them is that the petitioners were exempted from the operation of section 104 (3) of the H. P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. The learned Counsel for the respondents argued that the order passed by the Sub -Divisional Collector was perfectly in order. He stated that Shri Rajinder Singh, who had been served, should have applied for setting aside the ex -parte order instead of filing a revision.