Decided on December 12,1991

Chain Ram Appellant
CHARAN DASS Respondents


S.S.SIDHU,J. - (1.) I.A.S. - This recommendation has been made by the Settlement Collector, Shimla District vide his order dated 23 -10 -1989 passed in Revision No. 1/89.
(2.) The facts of the case giving rise to this recommendation are that Shri Charan Dass, respondent filed an application on 2 -8 -1988 before the Assistant Collector, II Grade (Settlement) at Kholighat for correction of entries in respect of Khasra No 950/858, measuring 5 -5 bighas, situated in chack Jahu, Sub -Tehsil Nankhari, District Shimla. In his application, Shri Charan Dass prayed that he be inducted as non -occupancy tenant on payment of rent as Bashara Parta Malkan\ The learned Assistant Collector, II Grade without summoning Shri Chain Ram, petitioner passed an order on 5 -12 -1988 whereby the application of Shri Charan Dass, respondent was granted and he was inducted as a tenant on a part of the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 950/858/1, measuring 2 -19 bighas on payment of rent as Bashara Parta Malkan from Kharif 1988 and the file was sent to the Kanungo for giving effect to his order in the revenue record. The Settlement Tehsildar, Rampur, who was on tour to village Jahu for checking of the settlement work in March, 1989, learnt about this order on a complaint made by Shri Chain Ram, petitioner. It was in this background that the case was reported to Settlement Collector, Shimla for setting aside the impugned order in revision. The learned Settlement Collector heard the parties and come to the conclusion that the learned Assistant Collector, II Grade, was not competent to entertain application for inducting the respondent as tenant. He held that since a prima facie dispute had been raised between the land owner and the tenant, it was incumbent upon the Revenue Officer to refer the matter to the Land Reforms Officer for decision in his capacity as Assistant Collector, 1st Grade Since the learned Settlement Collector held the order of Assistant Collector, II Grade as without jurisdiction, he has submitted the case to us under section 65 of the H. P Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, with the recommendation that the impugned order dated 512 -1988 be set aside and the case remanded to the Settlement Tehsildar -cum -Land Reforms Officer, Rampur for decision in accordance with law in his capacity as Assistant Collector, 1st Grade.
(3.) I have gone through the record of the case and have also heard the arguments of learned Counsel on both the sides. The dispute between the land owner and a tenant falls under section 104 (4), which forms part of Chapter X of the Act. The provision for appeal and revision under Chapter X has been made under section 114 of the Act. The learned Settlement Collector has referred the case to us under section 65 of the Act, which is not applicable in respect of dispute under section 104 (4) of the Act. Section 65 (3) states that if in any case in which the Commissioner or Collector has called for a record he is of opinion that the proceedings taken or the order or decree made should be modified or reversed, he shall submit the record with his opinion on the case for the orders of the Financial Commissioner. There is no similar provision under section 114 of the Act. As such, the recommendation made by the learned Settlement Collector is void since this is without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the recommendation made by the learned Settlement Collector, Shimla is not accepted. The proper course for the aggrieved party would have been to file an appeal or revision under section 114 of the Act before a competent forum. Order be communicated to the parties. Order accordingly.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.