Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 5587 (HP)

NEERA AND ORS v. RAMESH CHAND AND ORS

CWP/630/2021 · 2025-07-30

Ajay Mohan Goel

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:HHC:25340-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.629 of 2021 with CWP No. 630 of 2021 Reserved on :18.07.2025 Decided on: 30.07.2025 CWP No. 629 of 2021 Smt. Neera … Petitioner Versus Sh. Ramesh Chand and others … Respondents CWP No. 630 of 2021 Smt. Neera … Petitioner Versus Sh. Ramesh Chand and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Anil Chauhan, Advocate in both the petitions. For the respondent(s) : Mr. B.N. Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 4, in both the petitions. : Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, in both the petitions. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) As common issues of law and fact are involved in both these petitions, they are being disposed of vide a common judgement. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:25340-DB 2. The petitioner herein has challenged the order passed by learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), in revision petitions No. 2/2021 and 3/2021, in terms whereof, the revision petition filed by the petitioner herein, assailing order dated 04.01.2021, passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, in terms whereof the learned Divisional Commissioner allowed the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the private respondents herein and dismissed the applications filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the present petitioner, praying that the Authority should not hear the case on the ground that the Authority was dealing with the same matter on the administrative side, was dismissed. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the private respondents preferred appeal before learned Divisional Commissioner, alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Simultaneously, the petitioner also filed applications under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, with the prayer that the Authority concerned should not hear the appeal or the application praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeal for the reason that the same Authority which was hearing the matter on the quasi judicial side, had ordered the investigation on the administrative side with regard to the grant of Nataur in issue on 3 2025:HHC:25340-DB a complaint filed by the private respondents before the said Authority. Vide order dated 04.01.2021, on one hand, the Divisional Commissioner allowed the application filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeals and on the other hand, dismissed the applications filed by the petitioner herein under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In terms of the revisional order passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner have been upheld and the Revisional authority has held that as far as the applications filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure were concerned, as the Presiding Officer has enquired the matter in the administrative capacity and further as in terms of Section 18 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, he was empowered to seek a report from the Subordinate Revenue Officer, therefore, the objection raised with regard to the maintainability of the appeal, as rejected by the Divisional Commissioner, warranted no interference. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that these findings are perverse for the reason that both the Authorities erred in not appreciating that when the Divisional Commissioner was seized with the matter both on the administrative as well as quasi judicial side, prudence demanded that the Divisional Commissioner should not have heard the matter on the quasi- 4 2025:HHC:25340-DB judicial side. However, by doing so, he has prejudiced the case of the petitioner. He further submitted that this extremely important aspect of the matter was not correctly appreciated by the Authorities below, and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside on this count alone. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the private respondents argued that there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by learned Authorities below for the reason that the Authorities have correctly appreciated the facts of the case and proceeded with the matter, in accordance with law and the intent of filing the applications under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the petitioner herein before the Divisional Commissioner was only to delay the adjudication of the appeals. Accordingly, he submitted that as there was no merit in the present petitions, the same be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also carefully gone through the impugned orders, pleadings of the parties and documents appended therewith. 7. This Court is not dwelling on the respective contentions of the parties on the merits of the appeals or application filed for condonation of delay before the Divisional Commissioner. All that this Court is adjudicating upon in these two writ petitions is whether 5 2025:HHC:25340-DB in the peculiar facts of the case, learned Authorities below erred in not appreciating that the interest of justice demanded that the Divisional Commissioner concerned, who was seized with the matter, both on the quasi-judicial side as well as on administrative side, should not have heard the matter on the quasi judicial side. 8. It is settled principle of law that justice should not only be done but it should also seen to be done. The applications that were filed by the petitioner herein under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure were to the effect that the private respondents in these two petitions had filed complaint against the petitioner/ aggrieved of grant of Nataur, subject matter of the proceedings which were being dealt with by the Presiding Officer on the administrative side also. Not only this, the authority had issued directions on administrative side on the said complaint. In this backdrop, a prayer was made that the cases be transferred to some other Presiding Officer for adjudication by the Divisional Commissioner. In the course of hearing of these two petitions, it could not be demonstrated that the Presiding Officer, in fact, was not seized with the matter on the administrative side. It is an admitted position that the complaints were filed against the grant of Nataur in favour of the petitioner/predecessor-in-interest of the private respondent, based on which, inquiry was ordered by the Divisional Commissioner. That 6 2025:HHC:25340-DB being the case, when the appeals were filed before the same Authority, pertaining to the same land, prudence and the interest of justice demanded that the Authority should not have heard the matter so that the principle of law that justice should not only be done but should it seen to be done, was respected in both letter and spirit. This Court is not doubting the integrity of the Presiding Officer but it is the larger interest of justice which demanded that the Authority concerned should not have heard the appeal as well as the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal and it ought to have ordered that the same to be heard by some other Presiding Officer. 9. Learned Divisional Commissioner erred in not appreciating this extremely important aspect of the matter while venturing to hear the application filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 10. Similarly, the learned Financial Commissioner also did not appreciate this extremely important aspect of the matter and the orders passed by him in the Revision Petition are thus not sustainable in the eyes of law. 11. Both the Authorities have not appreciated that as learned Divisional Commissioner was seized of the matter, both on the administrative side on the basis of a complaint received and on 7 2025:HHC:25340-DB the quasi-judicial side on the basis of appeals filed by the complainant, it would have been in the interest of justice, had the appeals been decided by some other Authority. 12. Accordingly, in light of the discussion made hereinabove, as the impugned orders passed by the Authorities are not sustainable in the eyes of law, these petitions are allowed. Orders passed by learned Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, dated 04.01.2021 and orders passed by learned Financial Commissioner (Appeal) dated 15.01.2021, are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, with the direction that now let the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as the appeal be decided afresh by an officer other than the one who decided the same earlier. It is clarified that this Court has not made any observation as far as the merits of the case are concerned and the Authority shall proceed with the matter, uninfluenced by any observation made by this Court in the disposal of these petitions. Both these writ petitions stand disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 30, 2025 (narender)