Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 197 (HP)

RETD. MAJOR H. K. v. GRAM PANCHAYAT, DHALLI

2001-08-20

S.S.NEGI

body2001
ORDER 1. This revision petition preferred by Major H.K.Justa son of Shri L.R. Justa, resident of Dipin Villa, Broadway Enclave Sanjauli, Shimla-6, is directed against the order of Commissioner Shimla Division dated18.12.1997 in Revenue Revision No. 199/97 whereby the revision of the present petitioner was dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner Sh. H.K. Justa vide his application dated 29.6.1995 applied to the Assistant, Collector 1st Grade Shimla (R) for correction of revenue entries in respect of land measuring 2 Bighas comprised in Khasra Nos. 153/65/1 (0-15 Bighas), 63/1 (0-6 Bighas), 151/62/1 (0-15 Bighas) and 151/62/2 (0-4), situated in Mauza Dhalli, Tehsil Shimla as per terms of agreement executed by him with the Gram Panchayat Dhalli. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade Shimla (R) rejected the application of the petitioner vide order dated 08.01.1996 holding that under Section 112 of H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the Pardhan Gram Panchayat was not entitled and competent to make any agreement with regard to the land in ownership of the Panchayat without the prior approval of the Govt. Against this order dated 08.01.1996 the petitioner filed a review petition before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade on 18.04.1996 which was also dismissed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade on 7.1.1997 as barred by limitation. 3. Aggrieved of both the orders of Assistant Collector 1st grade dated 8.1.1996 and 7.1.1997, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Collector Shimla (R) on the grounds that the Assistant Collector 1st Grade had rejected review petition without giving opportunity of being heard. He further contended that he had been paying rent @ of Rs.240/- per month regularly to the Gram Panchayat and had paid consideration amount of Rs. 1240/-to the Gram Panchayat Dhalli as per agreement dated 11.3.1988. It had further been alleged that the land in dispute was in his possession and the Gram Panchayat was competent to lease out the land in dispute and the requisite permission from the Govt. had already been obtained before granting the lease to him. 4. The learned Sub-Divisional Collector after hearing both the parties and going through the record, dismissed the appeal vide dated 22.9.1997, holding that the Pardhan Gram Panchayat was not competent to lease out land without the consent of majority of members of Gram Panchayat and without permission of Government of Himachal Pradesh. 5. 4. The learned Sub-Divisional Collector after hearing both the parties and going through the record, dismissed the appeal vide dated 22.9.1997, holding that the Pardhan Gram Panchayat was not competent to lease out land without the consent of majority of members of Gram Panchayat and without permission of Government of Himachal Pradesh. 5. Dis-satisfied with this order of the Sub-Divisional Collector dated 22.9.1997, the present petitioner filed a revision petition before the commissioner Shimla Division on the grounds that the learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade Shimla (R) rejected his review petition without giving him any opportunity of being heard and the learned Sub-Divisional Collector also failed to consider and appreciate this aspect while deciding the appeal. He further contended that he was paying rent @ of Rs. 240/- per month regularly to the Gram Panchayat and had paid a sum of Rs.1240/- as a consideration amount of the land. He also contended that he was in possession at the time of grant of lease by the Gram Panchayat Dhalli. He alleged that the land in dispute was leased out to him through a valid written agreement and the said document was supported by the relevant resolution of the Gram Panchayat. He also asserted that as per letter No. 1936 dated 1.8.1981, of the Distt. Panchayat Officer, the Panchayat was competent to grant lease and no prior permission was required from Government. Gram Panchayat Rules of 1994 could not be applied retrospectively for lease granted in the year 1988. 6. The learned Commissioner after considering the arguments adduced by both the parties and perusal of record and considering all the aspects of the case dismissed the revision petition vide his order dated 18.12.1997. 7. It is against this order, the petitioner has preferred the instant revision petition before us. 8. The record were requisitioned and the parties were afforded due opportunity to address their claims in this court. 9. The petitioner has submitted written arguments and also addressed oral submissions at the time of arguments whereas the learned counsel for respondent made oral submissions. 10. The petitioner has prayed that the revenue authorities be carry out the correction as per terms of the agreement and admission of the respondent. 9. The petitioner has submitted written arguments and also addressed oral submissions at the time of arguments whereas the learned counsel for respondent made oral submissions. 10. The petitioner has prayed that the revenue authorities be carry out the correction as per terms of the agreement and admission of the respondent. The learned counsel for respondent Panchayat asserted that the Panchayat was not competent u6 either lease out or to Sell the land in question to the petitioner and hence no correction need be carried out. 11. After hearing both the sides and scrutiny of record, the uncontroverted position of the matter emerges as that the Gram Panchayat Dhalli entered into an agreement on 11.02.1998 with the petitioner to, firstly rent out the land and building as tenant to him and later to sell the same to him after observing the requisite formality. Monthly rent was fixed, which was paid by the petitioner regularity and he also paid Rs.124O/- as consideration money. Somehow, it appears that the agreement was not acted upon for the reasons known to the parties and the petitioner sought correction byway of recording his possession in the revenue record which possession having been obtained by him as a result of the agreement. The petitioner has submitted that he is in possession of the land as a result of the valid agreement and the Panchayat has also authorized him to deal with the property in the manner he likes. He has also asserted that the Panchayat also has agreed to sell the property to him and after receiving the part consideration, possession was delivered to him, and he has also, made Improvements on the land. He has also submitted that as per the agreement, the Panchayat cannot sell the property to any other person. The Government had given permission to sell the property on 07.10.1982. 12. The learned counsel for panchayat does not dispute the factum of possession with the petitioner but he contested that the Panchayat Pradhan was not competent to sell the land or enter into an agreement to sell the land. 13. In view of the submissions made by the petitioner and admission by the learned counsel for respondent Panchayat the basic question pertains to the performance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties, which question cannot be determined by this court being beyond jurisdiction. 13. In view of the submissions made by the petitioner and admission by the learned counsel for respondent Panchayat the basic question pertains to the performance of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties, which question cannot be determined by this court being beyond jurisdiction. The petitioner can agitate the matter before the appropriate court of competent jurisdiction. Therefore the order passed by the learned Commissioner is proper and legal. There is no justification to interfere with his order. Therefore, the revision is dismissed. 14. Orders be communicated to the parties and case file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion.