AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajay Mohan Goel, J
By way of this petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:-
“(i) That the order dated 06.07.2023 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Division Kangra, may kindly be quashed and set aside.”
The petitioners are primarily aggrieved by order dated 06.07.2023, passed by the Revisional Authority in proceedings initiated under Section 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act,1954, by the present contesting respondents, i.e. Case No.14 of 2021, titled as Sh. Chain Singh & others Versus Sh. Shri Ram & others, decided on 06.07.2023 (Annexure P-5), in terms whereof, the revision filed by the present respondents has been accepted and the Revisional Authority has set aside the order passed by Lower Court with a direction to the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Una to hear the case afresh after adopting due procedure of law and incorporating the directions issued by learned Sub-Divisional Collector in order dated 06.06.2016 in framing the Mode of Partition.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having carefully gone through the order under challenge as well as other orders passed by the Authorities, this Court partly concurs with the findings returned by learned Revisional Authority, for the reason that the ex parte proceedings initiated against at least Chain Singh, who is one of the respondents before this Court, were not sustainable, for the reason that after remand of the case in terms of the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 06.06.2016, when Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade again took up the matter, during the course of said proceedings on 09.01.2017, the Presiding Officer was not present, on which date Chain Singh was duly represented by his counsel. Despite the fact that the Presiding Officer was not present, Reader of the Court of the Presiding Officer fixed the listing of the case for 28.01.2017, on which date, Chain Singh was proceeded against ex parte.
This Court in Cr.MMO No.6 of 2010, titled Satya Parkash Katiyal Versus Smt. Usha Chauhan and others, decided on 23.03.2010, has held that the Reader of the Court has no power to fix the case binding the parties for their presence.
Here in, it was not even the Reader of the Judicial Court, but the Reader of a Quassi Judicial Authority. This Court is of the considered view that in the absence of any procedural Rule(s) conferring such a power upon the official of the Court, neither any date could have been given by the Reader of the Court binding the parties for their presence nor the non appearance of the respondents on a date fixed by the Reader could have resulted in such a party being proceeded against ex parte, as it was incumbent upon the Presiding Officer to at least have had issued a fresh notice to those parties which were presenting themselves before it, prior to the date on which he was on leave. Therefore, this Court does not finds any infirmity in the order impugned.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that taking into consideration the fact that the parties have been litigating for a very long time, time bound directions be given to Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Una to do the needful in terms of the orders passed by the Revisional Authority. As the request so made by learned counsel for the petitioners is reasonable, therefore, though this Court is not interfering with the order passed by the Revisional Authority, however, it is ordered that the Authority concerned, i.e. Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade shall pass appropriate orders in the matter in terms of the directions passed by the Revisional Authority within a period of eight weeks from today. The represented parties shall appear before Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade concerned on 26.05.2025, apprising him of the order passed by the Court. There shall be no need to issue any notice to the other parties.
With these observations, this petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.