SHEELA DEVI Vs. KANSHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Settlement Collector, Kangra District vide his order dated 22 -2 1979 has made a recommendation which has been duly supported by the learned Divisional Commissioner also that order dated 7 -12 -1 77 passed by the Assistant Settlement Collector, IInd Grade be virtue of which he attested the mutation of inheritance in favour of the respondent, Kanshi Ram, soon of Shri Khazana Ram in respect of land comprising Khewat/Khatauni No 99/126, measuring 72 Kanals 16 Marlas situated in Tika Karyalra, Mauza Dhawala of Tehsi1 Dehra, may be quashed as claims of other legal heirs of deceased Khazana Ram were ignored and they were not even given an opportunity, of being heard before me impugned order was passed. It has been further stated by him that Khazana Ram died some time ago leaving behind two sons, Sarvsliri Kanshi Ram and Nathu and two daughters ; Smt. Kaula Devi and Smt Damodri Devi, However, Kanshi Ram alone get the mutation of inheritance sanctioned in his favour by misrepresenting the facts to the Revenue Officer behind the back of other legal heirs It has also been added by the Settlement Collector that even though the revision petition preferred by the petitioners is time barred because it was filed after 255 days of the order of the Assistant Settlement Collector, IInd Grade, it should be entertained and disposed of under section 17 of H.P. Land Revenue Act.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsels for the petitioners as well as the respondent and perused the court record. It is not disputed that Khazana Ram deceased was survived by two sons and two daughters. Since there is no will on the basis of which mutation of inheritance could be attested in favour of a particular legal heir, it stands to reason that all the legal heirs should get equal share in their fathers property. The Assistant Settlement Collector, IInd Grade does not seem to have made inquiry about the other legal heirs and merely attested the mutation in favour of Kanshi Ram, who was identified by the village Lambardar. According to the Chapter 7 of the H.P. Land Records Manual, although in mutation proceedings, no detailed record of the statements of the parties and the witnesses is required to be made, the order passed by the Revenue Officer must state the persons examined by him, the facts deposed by them and the grounds of the order. The order passed by the Revenue Officer must also clearly indicate whether the interested parties were present ; or if any one was absent, the way in which his evidence was obtained, or, if it was not obtained, what opportunity was given to him to be present ; also who identified the parties present and the place at which, and the date on which, it was written. In the instant case, the Assistant Settlement Collector has mentioned in his order that the respondent Kanshi Ram was identified by the village Lambardar but his order is silent whether an enquiry was made about the other legal heirs of the deceased Khazana Ram and whether an opportunity was given to them to be present before the order was passed. Obviously, the guide lines contained in the Land Records Manual have not been followed by the Revenue Officer below with the result that miscarriage of justice has occurred, la view of the deficiencies in the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Collector, IInd Grade and also the apparent miscarriage of justice, the recommendation made by the Settlement Collector is accepted and the order dated 7 -12 -977 passed by the Assistant Settlement Collector, IInd Grade, is gashed. The Revenue Officer should not only follow the guide lines before attesting the mutation, he must also given a reasonable opportunity to the interested parties before passing a fresh order. Revision Accepted.