\IN THE COURT OF MEERA MOHANTY, IAS, COLLECTOR, DISTRICT

SIRMAUR, NAHAN, H.P.

Case No. 1/10 of 2009 Date of Instt.:- 04-04-2009

Date of Decision:-29-10-2011

1. Sh. Vijay Ram S/O Late Sh. Mata Ram,

2. Sh. Ved Prakash S/O Late Sh. Mata Ram,
3. Smt. Lalita Devi D/O Late Sh. Mata Ram,
4. Smt. Maya Devi W/O Late Sh. Mata Ram,
All legal heirs of Late Sh. Mata Ram residents of village Uttamwala-
Baraban, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P.
….. Appellants.

Versus

1. Sh. Manjeet Singh S/O Sh. Ajit Singh resident of Mohalla Ranital,
Nahan, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P.
2. Sh. Tota Ram S/O Sh. Changa Ram S/O Sh. Daya Ram residents of
village Uttamwala-Baraban, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P.

….Respondents

Appeal under section 114 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms
Act, 1972 against the order dated 17-01-2009 passed by Assistant
Collector Ist Grade(LRO), Nahan in Misc. application titled as
Manjeet Singh Vs. Tota Ram etc.

ORDER

The present appeal was preferred by Sh. Vijay Ram S/O

Late Sh. Mata Ram R/O village Uttamwala-Baraban, Tehsil Nahan, District
Sirmaur, H.P. & others against the order dated 17-01-2009 of the Assistant
Collector Ist Grade (LRO), Nahan passed in Misc. application titled Manjeet
Singh Vs. Tota Ram etc. District Sirmaur, H.P.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the
appellants preferred the present appeal on the following grounds:-
1. that the Ld. court below has miserably failed to decide
the matter in controversy and committed an illegality in
allowing to entertain and accept the Misc. application
dated 16-10-2001, hence the order dated 17-01-2009
is liable to be set aside.

1
 2. that the main case of resumption was fixed on 27-12-
1989 in presence of both the parties and their
respective Counsels. After framing of the issues it was
listed on 7-3-1989 for evidence of the
applicant/respondent No. 1, but on 7-3-1989 neither the
applicant Sh. Manjeet Singh appeared nor his witness
was present and as such the case of the applicant was
dismissed for non prosecution.
3. that after a gap of twelve years the respondent No.1
once tried to re-open a decided case and filed an
application by concealing all the material facts and by
making a false and fabricated flimsy story .
4. that the order dated 17-01-2009 passed by the court
below was appealable as the case was dismissed for
non prosecution and also for non compliance of the
order of Ld. court below as such the impugned Misc.
application without any provisions was not maintainable
and liable to be dismissed.
5. that application for restoration was filed after a gap of
twelve years as such the impugned order liable to be
set aside.
The parties were summoned and the record of the court below
was also requisitioned and thereafter the case was fixed for arguments on
24-09-2011.
Counsel Sh. T.R. Sharma appeared on behalf of the appellants
Sh. Vijay Ram & Ors and Sh. A.S. Shah, Ld. Counsel appeared on behalf of the
respondents, Sh. Manjeet Singh & ors. Ld. Counsel for the appellant while
putting forth his arguments claimed that as per enactment; the tenants became
owner of the entire land. In the year 1985, Sh. Manjeet Singh, respondent No.1
filed a case for resumption before the Land Reforms Officer, Nahan and the said
case was dismissed in default by Land Reforms Officer, Nahan on 07-03-1989.
Thereafter, in October, 2001 an application was moved by Sh. Manjeet Singh for
ignoring the order dated 07-03-1989 and which was allowed by the Ld. trial court
on 17-01-2009. The Ld. Counsel for appellant further argued that the application

2
 for restoration of order dated 07-03-1989 has been filed after a gap of 12 years
and no application for condonation of delay has been moved, as such the
application for restoration of order dated 07-03-1989 is time barred and deserve
to be dismissed.
Sh. A.S. Shah, Ld. Counsel for the respondents while arguing his
case claimed that Sh. Manjeet Singh was a minor and as soon as he attained
majority thereafter he moved 3 applications against Sh. Tota Ram & Other on
24-06-1985. The Ld. Counsel for the respondents further argued that the
application is dismissed in default in 1989 and the application for restoration of
order has been filed within one month from date of knowledge as it came to his
notice that the case was dismissed vide order dated 7-3-1989 only on 18-9-2001,
as such the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
On perusal of the case filed in detail, documents on record and
on hearing both Counsels, I am of the opinion that the Assistant Collector Ist
Grade(LRO), Nahan has rightly passed the order dated 17-1-2009 on the
application for restoration of order dated 8-3-1989. It appears from the perusal of
the case file of the lower court that the Counsel of the appellant has raised the
objection of the case being time barred at the time of production of application for
restoration of application by the respondent but it is also a fact that the Counsel
for the appellant has also been appearing in court in this case even after the
dismissal in default and none of them objected to the case continuing even after it
being dismissed in default until 2001. Further the court has also erred in not
consigning the file to the record room after dismissing the case in default. Hence,
in view of the above and with a view not to deprive anyone of justice for what
appears to be an error on behalf of the lower court also; the appeal is dismissed
and order passed by the court below is upheld. Further, the Tehsildar, Nahan is
directed to continue further proceedings after issuing notice to both the Counsels.
The record of the trial court be returned alongwith a copy of this order and the
case file of this court be consigned to GRR after due completion. Announced.
Sd/-
Collector,
District Sirmaur, Nahan.

3
4