Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. In the end, because of the fact that the Respondents were successful in the mutation proceedings, the Pargana Officer, Haldwani passed an order dated 30.09.1981 accepting the partition between the concerned Respondents, i.e. between Virendra Kumar and Ravi Kumar, on the basis of family settlement. Meanwhile, orders dated 07.08.1980 and 31.12.1980 were challenged before the Board of Revenue in revision proceedings, but the same were dismissed via order dated 20.01.1982 with the following observation –  “In fact, the challenge which is raised on behalf of the government, is in respect of ownership of the land and this matter cannot be decided finally in the mutation proceeding. Therefore, the matter should be proceeded in other competent court.” Thus, the issue of ownership again remained unadjudicated even at this stage.

12. Against the Expunction Order, the Respondents preferred a revision before the Commissioner, Kumaon who passed an interim order dated 20.01.1982 directing that no revenue entries should be deleted in light of the fact that the matter was pending before the Board of Revenue in mutation proceedings. However, as noted above, the Board of Revenue dismissed the said pending revision in the mutation proceedings on the same date. Consequently, it is stated that despite the abovementioned interim order dated 20.01.1982 of the Commissioner, the Tehsildar acted on Expunction Order and proceeded to expunge the revenue entries in favour of Respondents.

24. The Trial Court decreed the said suit in favour of the Respondents vide its order dated 20.10.1984. The Trial Court made extensive reference to 1967 Eviction Suit proceedings and 1978 Mutation Proceedings to hold that Respondents became ‘Sirdar’ and later on ‘Bhumidhar’ legally and that Appellants have no claim of title over the Suit Land. The Appellants filed an appeal against the order dated 20.10.1984, which was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 16.06.1986 on identical reasoning as given by the Trial Court. The First Appellate Court again highlighted the factum of longstanding revenue entries in favour of Respondents and the continued possession with them to uphold the order of the Trial Court. It also observed that the dispute in respect of the revenue entries should have been adjudicated by the competent revenue court instead of being decided by the Collector vide the Expunction Order.

d) It was also submitted that Appellants have deliberately failed to take any steps to correct the abovementioned revenue entries, which carry the presumption to be correct in law, despite suggestions to the contrary by the adjudication authorities in multiple proceedings, including in the 1978 Mutation Proceedings. Therefore in effect, it is stated by Respondents by relying on multiple decisions2 that favourable orders passed in the erstwhile proceedings between parties have become final, especially in light of the fact that the Appellants never took steps to get them set aside by competent authorities.