Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3690 (HP)

Bhikham Ram v. Gian Singh

2025-09-17

Ajay Mohan Goel

body2025
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 21.01.2017, passed by learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, in case titled Gian Singh Vs. Bhikham Ram, in terms whereof, the Appeal filed by the respondents herein, was set aside. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also carefully gone through the order under challenge. 3. In fact, the events in this case, which have led to the passing of the impugned order make an interesting reading. In terms of Annexure P/2 appended with the petition, Settlement Officer, Consolidation of Holdings, Himachal Pradesh, Mandi, in Revenue Appeal No. 46 of 95 (Remand Case), titled Manorama Devi Vs. Bhikham Ram, passed an order on 20.06.1996, dismissing the remand case. Vide Annexure P/3, Appeal filed by Manorma Devi against this order dated 20.06.1996, under Section 30(3) of The Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1971 Act’), was dismissed by the Settlement Officer vide order dated 20.09.1997. 4. Incidentally and interestingly, after the filing of the Appeal against order dated 20.06.1996, under Section 33 of the 1971 Act, which Appeal was filed on 22.07.1996, Manorma Devi also filed a Revision Petition against the same order before Additional Director, Land Records, Himachal Pradesh, under Section 54 of the 1971 Act. 5. Now, whereas, the Appeal filed by Manorma Devi under  Section  30(3)  of  the  1971 Act,  was  dismissed  on 20.09.1997, vide Annexure P/3, the Revision filed by her under Section 54 of the 1971 Act, was allowed in terms of Annexure P/4 on 23.12.1997 and the case was remanded back to Settlement Officer, Bilaspur, in terms thereof. 6. A perusal of order dated 23.12.1997, Annexure P/4 demonstrates that there is no whisper therein about the adjudication made by the Settlement Officer dated 20.09.1997. 7. In compliance with the order passed vide Annexure P/3, Collector, Sub-Division, Sadar exercising the power of Settlement Officer, Sub-Division, Sadar, vide Annexure P/5, dated 20.01.2014, passed an order again under Section 30(3) of the 1971 Act, upholding the order dated 20.06.1996. Incidentally in this order, the Authority took note of the fact that the order passed by the Authority on 20.06.1996 was unsuccessfully challenged by Manorma Devi in an Appeal, but she had also preferred a Revision Petition in the matter. 8. Incidentally in this order, the Authority took note of the fact that the order passed by the Authority on 20.06.1996 was unsuccessfully challenged by Manorma Devi in an Appeal, but she had also preferred a Revision Petition in the matter. 8. Perusal of record further demonstrates that as Manorma Devi had died during the pendency of the proceedings, her legal representatives were brought on record and they assailed the order passed by the Collector, dated 20.01.2014, by way of an Appeal under section 30(4) of the 1971 Act, which was also dismissed by learned Appellate Authority, Vide Annexure P/6, dated 17.08.2015. Feeling aggrieved, Gian Singh and others preferred a petition under Section 54 of the 1971 Act, which stands allowed in terms of the impugned order dated 21.01.2017. 9. Having carefully heard learned counsel for the parties and having carefully perused the impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order per se is not sustainable in the eyes of law for one simple reason that once the initial order dated 20.06.1996 stood unsuccessfully challenged by Manorma Devi, by way of an Appeal, under Section 30(3) of the 1971 Act, in terms of the decision of the Authority dated 20.09.1997, Annexure P/3, which attained finality, the subsequent proceedings initiated by her and her successors-in-interest, were all per se not maintainable. 10. Manorma Devi had no right to assail order dated 20.06.1996 both by way of an Appeal under Section 30(3) of the 1971 Act as well as under Section 54 of the 1971 Act. The Appeal under Section 30(3) of the 1971 Act was filed on 22.07.1996 i.e. before the petition was filed under Section 54 of the 1971 Act, which was filed on 04.12.1996. Because the Appeal was decided earlier in time i.e. on 20.09.1997, whereas the petition under Section 54 of the 1971 was decided on 23.12.1997, the order passed by the Authority in appeal having attained finality and being passed on an earlier date, was binding upon the parties. 11. In fact, the filing of the petition under Section 54 of the 1971 Act against order dated 20.06.1996 after having preferred an Appeal against the same order under Section 30(3) of the 1971 Act, was nothing but an abuse of the process of law on the part of Manorma Devi. 11. In fact, the filing of the petition under Section 54 of the 1971 Act against order dated 20.06.1996 after having preferred an Appeal against the same order under Section 30(3) of the 1971 Act, was nothing but an abuse of the process of law on the part of Manorma Devi. This extremely important aspect of the matter was not appreciated by the Authority, which heard the proceedings under Section 54 of the 1971 Act. Though the matter was again decided against Manorma Devi but the Authority ought to have appreciated that the subsequent proceeding filed under Section 54 of the 1971 Act in the keep of an Appeal already having been filed against order dated 20.06.1996 by Manorma Devi, was not maintainable. 12. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that as the order passed in Appeal preferred by Manorma Devi against order dated 20.06.1996 had attained finality, the petition filed under Section 54 of the 1971 Act, at her behest was not maintainable. The order passed therein as well as subsequent orders, which have culminated into the impugned orders, are per se bad in law, as the order passed in the Appeal having attained finality, was and is binding on the parties. This petition is entitled to be allowed on this short count alone, as there is a perversity in the impugned order for the reason that the Authority passing this order, has erred in not appreciating that neither the proceedings before it were maintainable nor the Authority had any right in law to pass an order contrary to the one which was passed in Appeal, in terms of a Annexure P/3, dated 20.09.1997, which had attained finality and was binding between the parties as well as the successors-in-interest of the parties. 13. In light of the above discussion, this petition is allowed. Order dated 21.01.2017, passed by learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, in case titled Gian Singh Vs. Bhikham Ram,  is  quashed  and  set  aside. Pending  miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.