Sumit Chaudhary v. The State of H.P & Ors.

Notice. Mr. L.N.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 In view of limited grievance of the petitioner, no notice is required to be issued to respondent No.5. Reply to the writ petition is also not required to be called from the appearing respondents. The matter has accordingly been heard at this stage. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2 The Assistant Collector Second Grade Indora, District Kangra, passed an order on 30.07.2016 accepting and attesting mutation No. 345 in favour of the petitioner on the basis Tamleek Nama/Gift Deed. Feeling aggrieved, against attestation of this mutation, respondent No.5 preferred an appeal against the order dated 30.07.2016. The appeal was allowed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Indora on 27.09.2024. The impugned order dated 30.07.2016 passed by the Assistant Collector Second Grade Indora in mutation No. 345 was set aside. The matter was remanded with direction to the Competent Authority to decide the case afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the Divisional commissioner Kangra on

27.01.2026. Petitioner, apparently has taken recourse against the aforesaid orders by preferring Revision Petition before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the scheduled date for listing of said revision petition is 03.07.2026, however, on account of the post lying vacant at present and the charge of the said post 3 having not been assigned to any officer, there is no likelihood of the said revision petition being taken up for consideration in near future and since the petitioner has also preferred an application for grant of interim relief against the sanction of mutation dated 20.06.2026 attested on the strength of order dated 27.01.2026 passed by the Divisional Commissioner Kangra, by seeking status quo ante, it has become imperative for him to institute the present writ petition seeking interim relief in the interregnum.

Heard and considered the case file to the limited extent of considering petitioner’s prayer for grant of interim relief pending consideration of the matter by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh.

From the case file, it appears that Mutation No. 345 was attested by the Assistant Collector Second Grade, Indora, on 30.07.2016, wherein, property belonging to respondent No.5 was passed on to the petitioner as her adopted son. In this regard, respondent No.5 instituted a civil suit before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Indora against the petitioner and his father Sh. Rajesh Kumar, wherein pursuant to a compromise arrived at between them in an application filed under Order 39 4 Rules 1 & 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, vide order dated

11.09.2021, the parties on both sides were directed to maintain status quo qua alienation and transfer of the suit land till final disposal of the civil suit. Since Mutation No. 345 was still standing, respondent No.5 took recourse to the remedy available under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 and preferred appeal against the aforesaid mutation by projecting the case that father of the present petitioner ( petitioner statedly aged 11 years at the relevant time) hailed from adjoining area of State of Punjab, had no land in Himachal Pradesh, was non-agriculturist and by taking advantage of respondent’s illiteracy and simpleton nature, got prepared a false and frivolous adoption deed in connivance with her husband who always remains under the influence of liquor; That respondent No. 5 had neither any intention nor she had adopted the petitioner as her son. Petitioner had always stayed with his father.

He never stayed with respondent No.5. The adoption deed was got signed by the present petitioner’s father as a witness and petitioner himself signed for the acceptance even though he was minor; That Mutation No. 345 parting her property in favour of petitioner was 5 attested behind her back; She was not present at the time of attestation of mutation on 30.07.2016. The Sub Divisional Collector vide his order dated 27.09.2024 allowed this appeal and held that the Assistant Collector Second Grade had not passed a reasoned order in mutation No. 345; The order passed on mutation was silent about the name of the executor/doner of the gift deed and the claimant/donee of the gift deed in whose presence the said mutation was presented and who identified the presenters at the time of attestation of mutation. The Appellate Authority concluded that opportunity of hearing was not given to respondent No.5.

The order dated 30.07.2016 passed in Mutation No. 345 was set aside. Respondent No.5’s appeal was accordingly accepted with direction to the Assistant Collector Second Grade to decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Present petitioner preferred appeal against the aforesaid order before the Divisional Commissioner. One of the grounds urged was that respondent No.5’s challenge to mutation No. 345 was barred by limitation. The Divisional Commissioner repelled the challenge inter-alia holding that mutation attestation order dated 30.07.2016 had been 6 passed behind the back of respondent No.5. The Authority, inter-alia, also observed that all throughout petitioner had been represented by his biological father as his General Power of Attorney. On considering the case on merits, it was observed that order passed by Sub Divisional Collector did not call for any interference.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the basis of the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner on 27.06.2026, Mutation No. 493 has now been attested on 20.06.2026, reverting the property in question back to respondent No.5. Petitioner though has taken recourse to revisional remedy before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Himachal Pradesh, however, the post of Financial Commissioner is lying vacant at present, hence, petitioner’s application seeking interim relief is not likely to be taken up in near future. This has necessitated seeking interim relief from this Court for passing status quo ante i.e. as existed prior to attestation of Mutation of No. 493 sanctioned on 20.06.2026. The petitioner has already taken recourse to remedy of revision before the Financial Commissioner (Appeal), Himachal Pradesh. After considering pleadings, the documents on record and the orders 7 impugned by the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant interim relief of status quo ante as it existed prior to attestation of Mutation No.

493. Interests of parties are otherwise protected as learned Civil Court has already ordered the parties to maintain status quo qua alienation and transfer of the suit land. However, by way of abundant caution, it is clarified that this order shall remain confined to the adjudication of this writ petition to the limited extent of considering petitioner’s prayer for grant of interim relief pending consideration of petitioner’s revision petition by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), which shall be decided by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) on its own merit, without being influenced by any of the observations made above. With the above observations, the present writ petition to stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. June 29, 2026 R.Atal Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge