IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4342 of 2009 Date of decision: 18.8.2010 Daya Ram ……….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ……….Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the petitioner : Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. A.G. for respondent No. 1. Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector Sub Division, Theog, District Shimla in case No. 3/2003 allowing the application under Section 4 of the H.P. Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) for restitution of possession of the mortgaged land Annexure P-1 as affirmed by the Commissioner Annexure P-2 and the Financial Commissioner Annexure P-3. The petition was contested on number of grounds by the petitioner herein, who was the respondent before the Collector. The basic point for consideration was as to whether the petitioners before the Collector were entitled for the redemption of the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes. 2 suit land. On the other issues urged on non-maintainability etc. there was no evidence. This issue was decided in favour of the petitioners. S/Shri Daya Ram, Karam Chand, Man Singh, Varinder Kumar, Surinder Kumar , Smt. Jatnu, Miss Neena thereafter preferred an appeal under Section 10 of the Act, as aforesaid, which appeal was dismissed on 16.4.2009 (Annexure P-2). Revision Petition No. 116 of 2009 was filed before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), who dismissed the revision petition (Annexure P-3) holding:- “ I have heard the arguments of both sides and have also perused the impugned orders attached to the petitions. It is seen from the impugned order of the Commissioner as well as from the order dated 13.4.2006 of the Collector, Theog Sub-division that no evidence had been brought on record to show that the land had been sold by the petitioners. No documentary proof has been placed on the record. In these circumstances, the lower courts were convinced about the pleas of the petitioners. Both the courts below have given reasoned orders and the petitioners have not been able to specifically show anything irregular or illegal with the same. In these circumstances, the present petition is not admitted.” 2. This part of the order has been reproduced as the Financial Commissioner has not turned to the other facts of the case except in so far as the locus standi of the petitioner herein is concerned holding that the sale transaction in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of Udhi Ram has not been established in the record of the case. This was fundamental to the decision of the entire case as without proving the facts, the petitioner herein would not have any locus standi to challenge the redemption. 3 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued in detail that the revenue authorities below are wrong in judging the locus standi in the manner in which it has been done more especially considered the fact that the sale in favour of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner has been established on record by a pronote. I am not making any pronouncement on the validity of the transaction and the applicability of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act in old areas of Himachal Pradesh. If it is the title of the petitioner which he says that he acquires from the predecessor-in-interest, this obviously cannot be determined in revenue proceedings. This petition is disposed of accordingly. It will be open to the petitioner to establish his right/title/interest in the land in accordance with law by instituting a suit before the civil court. 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Shri Anand Ram died on 20th October, 2009. His estate has been represented by Capt. Harish Chandel, his brother Ramesh Chand. Capt. Harish Chandel also holds special power of attorney on behalf of his mother Begi Devi and sister Meena Devi, the other heirs of the deceased. 5. No order as to costs. All interim orders are vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of. August 18, 2010. (Dev Darshan Sud), J. (vs)