Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 328 (HP)

LAL CHAND v. RAM CHAND

2006-10-31

RAJWANT SANDHU

body2006
ORDER 1. These two revision petitions have been filed by Shri Lai Chand Sikka (now deceased) under Section 17 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act against the order of the Commissioner, Shimla Division dated 12.1.2000 in Case No. 108/99 and 109/99, whereby the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Shimla dated 28.6.1999 was confirmed and the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. 2.The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, Shri Lai Chand Sikka (now deceased) filed two separate applications under Section 37 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act before the Assistant Collector, llnd Grade, Theog, claiming to be in possession of land in Khasra Nos. 203 and 209, measuring 2-6 bighas, and khasra No. 303/211 and 295/194, measuring.2-16 bighas, respectively, situated in Mohal Galu Kalan.-Tehsil Theog, District Shimla since the year 1977 when he purchased the same. This purchase was allegedly effected before the amendment of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 in 1988 and published in Rajpatra of H.P. on 14.4.1988. The Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade after making enquiry under Section 37 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act and after ascertaining the situation on the spot passed the order dated 30.11.1996 through which the possession of the petitioner on the spot was recorded in respect of the khasra numbers stated above. This order of the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade was challenged in two appeals No. 08/96 and 9/96 before the Assistant Settlement Officer (Collector Settlement) who through his order dated 28.6.1999 set aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade on 30.11.1996. These orders were challenged before the Commissioner, Shimla Division, who upheld the same vide a single order dated 12.1.2000 passed in appeals No. 108/99 and 109/99 and observed that the Collector (Settlement) had rightly set aside the order of the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade for the reason that the appellant was a non-agriculturist and therefore he could not be recorded in possession of the land in dispute as this would be a violation of the provisions of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. 3. In the grounds of the revision petition it has been stated that no notice under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 was issued to the petitioner in respect to the land in dispute. The courts below did not have jurisdiction in the matter. 3. In the grounds of the revision petition it has been stated that no notice under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 was issued to the petitioner in respect to the land in dispute. The courts below did not have jurisdiction in the matter. The petitioner had purchased about 20 bighas of land from the respondnet and the petitioner was in possession of the this area since 1977. It was the duty of the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade to ascertain the possession over the land in the proceedings before him for correction of the revenue entries. The Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade had conducted a full enquiry and passed his order regarding possession on the spot being with the petitioner in respect of the khasra numbers mentioned above. Further the petitioner was in settled possession of the land and he could not be evicted from the same except in due course of law. The title of the respondents 16 and 17 was highly disputed and the sale dated 31.5.1997 was illegal. Though this sale deed by they were claiming possession on the basis of purchase of land from Respondent Nos. 1 to 15 while this land had already been purchased by the petitioner from the Respondent Nos. 1 to 15 in 1977 and these respondents had no right title or interest over the land in question left with them. 4. The case was initially fixed for arguments on admission on 30.10.2006 when a resolution of the Bar Association was received regarding abstaining from the court on that date. The case was then fixed for arguments on 31.10.2006. On this date none was present for the petitioner while Shri Pawan Kaprate appeared representing the respondents. Shri Pawan Kaprate, Advocate for respondents argued that Shri Lai Chand Sikka had no right title or interest in Khasra Nos. 203,209, 303/211 and 295/194. Since Shri Sikka did not hold any land in H.P. at the time of the enactment of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, under the provisions of Section 118 he was debarred from acquiring any agricultural land in the State without the permission of the Government. He had obtained permission from the Government in 1979 for the purchase of 4 acres of land. He had obtained permission from the Government in 1979 for the purchase of 4 acres of land. Under the provisions of Section 118 of the Act ibid and Rule 38(A), of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms and Rules, 1975, Shri Sikka continued to have the status of a non-agriculturist and could not acquire any land beyond the area of 4 acres for which he had obtained permission from the Government. Khasra Nos. 203, 209, 303/211 and 295/194 did not form part of the area approved for purchase by Shri Sikka and he therefore he had no right to claim any kind of possession/ownership over this land. 5. The record of the case has been perused and it is seen that in Revision petition No. 235/2000 decided on 29.8.2006 it ha already been established that Shri Lai Chand Sikka was allowed by the H.P. Government to purchase 4 acres of land through order No. 2(E)2-1/79 dated 15.10.1979 under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act and Rules framed hereunder. This was the maximum, area that could have been taken by Shri Lai Chand Sikka. Any holding or claim in excess of this would be illegal and a nullity in the eyes of law. Therefore, without going into the merits of the rights of the respondents Nos. 1 to 15 to sell land of respondents No. 16 and 17, Shri Lai Chand Sikkas right over the Khasra No.203 and 209, measuring 2-06 bighas, and khasra Nos. 303/211 and 295/194, measuring 1-16 bighas cannot be held to be legal. His alleged possession therefore on these khasra numbers is a nullity. There is no merit in this revision petition and the same is not admitted. Announced in the open court today the 31.10.2006. 6. Record of the courts below be returned and the case file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion.