HC upholds FC’s order, says petitioner suppressed material facts

Shimla, October 13

Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld the order of the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing a revision petition in a land revenue dispute, observing that the petitioner had not approached the court with clean hands and had suppressed material facts while seeking relief against the orders of revenue authorities.

Justice Sandeep Sharma, while dismissing the writ petition filed by Veer Kali in CWP No. 1665 of 2026 on October 8, held that the petitioner had repeatedly attempted to misstate facts concerning the date on which she came to know about the order directing correction of revenue entries.

The court found no illegality or infirmity in the Financial Commissioner’s order dated June 12, 2024.

The dispute arose from an application filed by Banka Ram in 2009 seeking correction of revenue records relating to land in Kulgain village of Chirgaon tehsil in Shimla district. Following an inquiry and examination of old and new revenue records, the Settlement Collector ordered correction of the entries on August 21, 2019.

Also Read SC orders status quo on HC verdict as HP moves ahead with forest land regularisation policy

The petitioner challenged the order before the Divisional Commissioner after the prescribed limitation period and sought condonation of delay. The application was rejected, and the Financial Commissioner subsequently dismissed her revision petition.

Examining the record, Justice Sharma noted that the petitioner had obtained a certified copy of the Collector’s order on December 6, 2019, although she subsequently claimed that she learnt about it only in June 2020. The court also observed that the mutation had been attested in the presence of her son on November 26, 2019.

The court held that no plausible explanation had been furnished for the seven-month delay in filing the appeal. It observed that the petitioner had attempted to present facts contrary to the documentary record before the revenue authorities and the High Court.

Relying on Supreme Court judgments concerning suppression of material facts, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. It also noted that Banka Ram’s subsequent possession suit had been decreed and possession of the disputed land had been delivered to him.

About the Author

himachaleditor

Editor

View All Posts