IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.852 of 2007 Reserved on 3.4.2008 Date of decision 25.4.2008 Rajmal Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. and others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rajiv Sharma,J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr. S.R. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr.Rajinder Dogra, Addl Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.L.S.Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Rajiv Sharma, J. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that after the demise of Smt.Indri Devi the mutation was attested in favour of the petitioner by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Dhatwal at Bijhari on 27.9.2001. The respondent No.3 filed an appeal against the order dated 27.9.2001. The Collector accepted the appeal on 30.5.2002 and remanded the matter back to the Assistant Collector IInd Grade Dhatwal at Bijhari with the direction to hear the case afresh and decide it on merits after affording full opportunity to all the interested parties. The Assistant Collector IInd Grade again ordered the attestation of the mutation in favour of the petitioner on 30.10.2002. The respondent No.3 preferred an appeal against the order dated 30.10.2002. The appeal was decided by the Collector on 18.9.2003 whereby again the direction for remanding the case back to the Assistant Collector IInd Grade for reconsidering the same 1 Whether reporter of local papers are allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2 was made. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order dated 18.9.2003 preferred an appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 28.12.2005. The respondent No.3 preferred a revision petition against the order of Divisional Commissioner before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals). The Financial Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the revision on 9.1.2007. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 9.1.2007 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals). Shri S.R.Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had strenuously argued that the order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) on 9.1.2007 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 and Sh.L.S.Thakur, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 had supported the order dated 9.1.2007. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully. It is evident from the facts enumerated here in above that the mutation was attested in favour of the petitioner on 27.9.2001 and this order was set aside by the Collector in appeal on 30.5.2002.The mutation was again attested in favour of the petitioner on 30.10.2002 which was set aside by the Collector on 18.9.2003. The Commissioner had allowed the appeal on 28.12.2005. The Divisional Commissioner has allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner primarily on the basis of Section 45 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. The Divisional Commissioner has not correctly construed column No.9 of the jamabandi to ascertain the status of respondent No.3. It is specifically mentioned in Column No.9 of the jamabandi that the rent was not payable because of the relationship with the owner (“Billa Lagan Bawaja Rishtedari”). The Divisional Commissioner has also erred in law while setting aside the order of the Collector dated 18.9.2003. The mutation could not be attested in favour of the petitioner without hearing the respondent No.3. Smt.Indri 3 Devi could not be a co-owner and a tenant under herself. This aspect has been over looked by the Divisional Commissioner but correctly appreciated by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals). The revenue entry is also to the effect “Billa Lagan Bawaja Rishtedari” which does not confer the status of tenant on Smt. Indri Devi. There is neither any jurisdictional error nor any procedural irregularity in the order dated 9.1.2007 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals). Consequently the writ petition is dismissed and the order dated 9.1.2007 is upheld. No order as to costs. April 25, 2008 (g) ( Rajiv Sharma ), J.