KANTA DEVI Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against the order dated 16.12.2014, passed by learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) H.P. (Annexure P -1) and orders dated 24.9.2010 and 28.3.2014 passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, H.P. (Annexure P -4), whereby order dated 18.1.2012, passed by the learned District Collector, holding petitioner Kanta Devi entitled to become Kardar of Devta Adi Brahma after the death of her husband Ramu @ Ram Singh, was assailed by respondent No.3 -Uttam Ram.

(2.) Necessary facts for the proper adjudication of case, as emerge from the pleadings of the parties are that as per Shajra Nasab, one Shri Manglu became Kardar of Devta Adi Brahma, Phati Shilihar, Kothi Khokhan, Tehsil and District Kullu Himachal Pradesh. He had two sons namely Janglu and Ramu alias Ram Singh. Janglu who was the eldest son of Manglu died in the year, 1948, during the life time of his father Manglu, who died in 1973. Since at the time of death of Manglu, respondent No. 3 Uttam Ram, who, the son of elder son of deceased Manglu was minor, second son Ramu @ Ram Singh of Manglu was appointed as Kardar in place of Manglu and he continued to perform duties as Kardar till 2009. Since respondent No. 3 Uttam Ram was minor at that time, he never objected to the selection of Ramu (husband of the present petitioner) as Kardar of Devta Adi Brahma. However, record further reveals that appointment of Ramu was set aside vide order dated 11.10.1974 passed by the Deputy Commissioner on the application of one Shri Ludar Singh, however, aforesaid order was challenged by Ramu by way of Civil Suit No. 41 -1 of 75 in the Court of learned Sub Judge, Ist class, Kullu, H.P. The Court of learned Sub -Judge vide judgment dated 17.4.1978 decreed the suit of the Ramu (husband of the present petitioner) for declaration to the effect that order of Collector Kullu dated 11.10.1974 appointing Ludar Chand as Kardar of Devta Adi Brahma is illegal and void and Ramu is not bound by the same and the defendants (Ludar Chand and State of H.P.) were restrained not to interfere with the working of the plaintiff as Kardar till the fresh appointment of Kardar and the Collector was directed to decide the matter de novo for the appointment of Kardar in which the plaintiff ( Ramu) among the other candidates were also to be given due and reasonable opportunity. It is also on record that aforesaid judgment passed by learned Sub -Judge Kullu passed through judicial scrutiny on two occasions, (1) when first appeal was preferred before the learned District Judge, Kullu and (2) thereafter, before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh by way of regular second appeal. This Court vide judgment dated 11.1.1991 (Annexure P -2) upheld the order passed by learned Sub -Judge and passed following orders: -

(3.) Perusal of the operative part, as reproduced above, suggests that functions of the 'Kardar' are to be performed on a hereditary basis.