IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.820 of 2006 Reserved on 20.3.2008 Date of decision 5.4.2008 Balwant Singh and others …Petitioners Vs. State of H.P. and others …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr.G.D.Verma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr.Romesh Verma, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 5. Rajiv Sharma,J. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that that the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade vide order dated 1.8.1981 had conferred proprietary rights of land bearing Khata No.18, Khatauni No.27, Khasra Nos. 534, 542 and 547, Kita 3, measuring 18.2 marlas in favour of the predecessor in interest of present petitioners subject to the payment of Rs.724.60 under Section 104 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. It appears from the record that the predecessor-in- interest of the respondent No.2 to 5 Smt. Chiri Devi filed a suit in the court of Senior Sub Jude, Kangra at Dharamshala vide suit No.1550/1985. The suit was decided, appeal was carried to learned District Judge and then to this Court. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents No.2 to 5 1 Whether reporter of local papers are allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2 preferred an SLP against the decision of this Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court passed the following judgment on 7.1.1993: “The plaint should have been returned to her by the High Court so that she could present it before the Revenue court. She may approach the High Court of the same.” Thereafter this Court passed the following judgment on 12.8.1993: ”Heard. Allowed to the extent that instead of dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff Chiri Devi its plant is returned to her for presenting the same before the appropriate authority. The decree be amended accordingly”. . This Court on 12.8.1993 returned the plaint to Smt. Chiri Devi predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.2 to 5 for presenting the same before the appropriate authority. Smt. Chiri Devi died on 11.10.1993. Though the plaint was returned on 12.8.1993 but the application was preferred by the respondents No.2 to 5 in the Court of Tehsildar-cum- Assistant Collector Ist Grade on 12.2.1996. Following relief was sought for in the application preferred by the respondents No.2 to 5: “It is, therefore, prayed that due to foregoing reasons the record of entries incorporated in the names of respondents in Jamabandies and khasra Girdwari from the year 1960 may be corrected and the possession of the applicants and Smt. Chiri Devi may be confirmed and incorporated in the revenue record and in case the learned court finds that in view of the entries in the name of the respondents or otherwise the possession is held to be of the respondents illegally than in that case the possession may be got transferred to the applicants in the interest of justice.” The Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector Ist Grade dismissed the application on 11.11.1996. The appeal was carried against the order dated 11.11.1996 before the Collector. The Collector dismissed the appeal on 29.9.1997. The respondents filed a revision petition under Section 114 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 against the order of Additional District Magistrate-cum-Collector. The appeal was accepted by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) on 11.10.2002. He 3 quashed the entries made in favour of petitioner Ram Singh and proforma respondent Sandhuri Singh on the basis of illegal entries in the order dated 1.8.1981 passed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Nurpur in Mutation No.1045. The petitioner filed a revision under Section 114(3) of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 against the order dated 11.10.2002. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the revision vide order dated 23.5.2006 and the order of the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) dated 11.10.2002 was set aside. However, the mutation No.1045 was also set aside by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) and the mater was remanded back to the Land Reforms Officer, Tehsil Nurpur to carry out a proper enquiry into the matter under the provisions of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner had strenuously argued that the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) could not remand the matter once the petition had been accepted by him. He also contended that the plaint was returned by this court to Smt. Chiri Devi, predecessor- in-interest of respondents No.2 to 5 on 12.8.1993. However, the application (Annexure P-2) was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of Smt. Chiri Devi on 12.2.1996. He also contended that in the application preferred by the respondents No.2 to 5 there was no prayer for setting aside order dated 1.8.1981 as well as mutation No.1045 and thus the order quashing the mutation could not be passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) on 23.5.2006. The learned Additional Advocate General has supported the orders passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) dated 23.5.2006. Mr. G.D.Verma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.Romesh Verma, appearing for respondents No.2 to 5 had vehemently argued that the order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) is sustainable in the eyes of law. He also contended that copy of 4 the plaint filed by Smt.Chiri Devi was annexed with the application dated 12.2.1996. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. The position which emerges from the facts enumerated here-in- above is that the Land Revenue Officer has passed a speaking order on 1.8.1981 on the basis of which proprietary rights were conferred upon the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. A civil suit was filed and ultimately the plaint was returned to respondents No.2 to 5 by this Court on 12.8.1993. The application was filed by predecessor-in-interest of Smt. Chiri Devi for correction of revenue entries on 12.2.1996. The respondents No.2 to 5 have not explained why the plaint was not presented before the appropriate Forum within a reasonable time. It is evident from the relief clause which has already been extracted here-in- above that there was no prayer for quashing order dated 1.8.1981 passed by the competent authority along with mutation No.1045. The Tehsildar- cum-Assistant Collector Ist Grade dismissed the application on 11.11.1996. The Collector, Kangra had affirmed the order on 29.9.1997. The Additional Commissioner (Appeals) while accepting the revision preferred by respondents No.2 to 5 quashed the entries made in favour of the predecessor in interest of present petitioner and Sandhuri Singh. The order dated 1.8.1981 passed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Nurpur in Mutation No.1045 was also set aside. The respondents No.2 to 5 as discussed already have never prayed in their application for setting aside order dated 1.8.1981 and mutation No.1045. The Additional Commissioner (Appeals) has granted the relief which was not even prayed for in the application preferred by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents No.2 to 5 in application dated 12.2.1996. 5 The Financial Commissioner (Appeals) while accepting the revision of the petitioners though had set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner (Appeals). However, surprisingly he also quashed the mutation No.1045. What has been prayed for in the application was for correction of the revenue entries alone. There was no prayer in the application seeking quashing of order dated 1.8.1981 and mutation No.1045. The parties are bound by their pleadings and the authorities have also to decide the lis between the parties strictly as per the pleadings. In the present case the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) has exceeded his jurisdiction by going beyond the pleadings, more particularly the relief clause in the application while quashing the Mutation No.1045. In view of the observations made here in above, the petition is allowed. The order dated 23.5.2006 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) is quashed and set aside only to the extent he had ordered quashing of the mutation No.1045. There shall be no order as to costs. April 5, 2008(g) ( Rajiv Sharma ), J.