Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 344 (HP)

PREM CHAND v. STATE OF H. P

2006-11-10

RAJWANT SANDHU

body2006
Order This revision petition has been filed against an order dated 2-4-2002 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu exercising the powers of Commissioner under the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Assistant Collector, lst,Grade, Kullu initiated proceedings under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act in respect of Tukra No. 1 measuring 2-13 bighas, Tukra No. 2 measuring K-9 bigha, Tukra No. 3 measuring 8-9 bighas, Tukra No. 4 measuring 4 bighas and Tukra No. 5 measuring 7-7 bighas against one Shri Krishan Kumar and Smt. S. Rani. The Assistant Collector ordered ejectment of I the said persons vide an order dated 22-7-1991 and the possession of the said land was handed over to the Forest Department on 15-10-1992. The present petitioner No. 2 filed a revision petition against the order of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade before the Collector, Sub Division, Kullu who directed the Assistant Collector to initiate review proceedings pease any mis-carriage of justice has been done. The Assistant Collector I held an enquiry and reported back to the Sub Divisional Collector that encroachment proceedings have been initiated in respect of Tukra No. 4 measuring 4 bighas against the present petitioners. Accordingly, permission to review the earlier order dated 22-7-1991 was granted and encroachment proceedings in respect of Tukra No. 4 measuring 4 bigha were taken up against the present petitioners while the order was confirmed qua the remaining land. The present petitioners challenged the order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade passed on 4-10-1997 before the Sub Divisional Collector, Sub Division, Kullu who forwarded the case to the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu exercising the powers of Commissioner on the grounds that once the possession has been delivered to the Forest Department in pursuance of the ejectment order dated 22-7-1991, the question of initiating further proceedings does not arise. The Deputy Commissioner, Kullu accepted the recommendation of the Sub Divisional Collector vide his order dated 22-4-2002 and set aside the order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, dated 4-10-1997. 3. The present revision petition has now been tiled on the grounds that the order dated 22-4-2002 is a non-speaking order. It has been averred that the Sub Divisional Collector has exercised powers not vested in him and that the Conservator of Forests was not an aggrieved party in the matter. 4. 3. The present revision petition has now been tiled on the grounds that the order dated 22-4-2002 is a non-speaking order. It has been averred that the Sub Divisional Collector has exercised powers not vested in him and that the Conservator of Forests was not an aggrieved party in the matter. 4. The record of the Courts below was called to and examined. The arguments advanced by the learned Counsel to the parties were heard. The contents of the revision petition were reiterated by the learend Counsel for the petitioner. He argued that the land in dispute had always remained in the possession of the petitioners. He further contended that the interim order dated 8.4.2002 purportedly recorded by the Deputy Commissioner is unsigned and therefore it cannot be assumed that arguments in the matter were ever heard by the learned Deputy Commissioner. According to him, the order dated 22.4.2002 passed by the Deputy Commissioner is cryptic and without any reasoning. He has assigned no reasons for setting aside the order dated 4.10.1997 of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Kullu. On the other hand, the learned D.A. (Rev) arguing to the State contended that the status of the petitioners in the matter has not been made clear by them. It has not been clarified as to what status they are claiming over the land. According to him, the matter has gone up to the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh and the Sh. K.K. Dhar and S. Rani trom whom the petitioners claim to have bought the land were parties therein. The learned D.A. (Rev) contended that the possession of the land has already been handed over to the Forest Department. 5. Having heard the Counsel for both the parties and perusing the record of the Courts below, I find that the possession of the land in dispute was handed over to the Forest Department in pursuance to order dated 22.7.1991 passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Kullu in proceedings under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954. Once the proceedings had been conducted and had culminated into passing of ejectment orders on 22.7.1991, it is not clear as to how the Assistant Collector 1st Grade sought review from the Collector on the grounds that the proceedings should have been initiated against the present petitioners. Once the proceedings had been conducted and had culminated into passing of ejectment orders on 22.7.1991, it is not clear as to how the Assistant Collector 1st Grade sought review from the Collector on the grounds that the proceedings should have been initiated against the present petitioners. The fact that the possession of the land stood handed over to the Forest Department was not denied by the petitioners before the Courts below, The learned Collector, Sub Division, Kullu, has adjudicated upon the matter in detail and has correctly arrived at the conclusion that once the possession of the land had been handed over to the Forest Department, question of initiating proceedings against persons who are already out of possession does not arise. The learned Deputy Commissioner, Kullu has therefore committed no error in allowing the recommendation of the Collector. A mere clerical error vide which the interim order dated 8.4.2002 remained unsigned by the presiding officer cannot be allowed to come in the way of upholding the well reasoned findings of the Collector accepted by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his powers of Commissioner under the Act. I find no reason to interfere in the orders passed by the Courts below. The revision petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. 6. Announced in the open Court today on the 10.11.2006. The record of the Courts below may be returned and the file may be consigned to the record room after due completion. Revision petition dismissed.