Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 52 (HP)

SATYA DEVI WIDOW v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2006-03-14

RAJWANT SANDHU

body2006
ORDER: This review petition has been preferred by Smt. Satya Devi and others under Rule 29 of H.P. Nautor Rules read with Rule 23 of H.P. Nautor Land Rules 1954 to review the order dated 30.12.1996 passed by my predecessor in Revision No. 194/92. My learned predecessor while passing the impugned order has directed the Deputy Commissioner Shimla to issue revised tatimas in accordance with the grant and handover possession to the grantees. She has further directed that the Deputy Commissioner alongwith forest authorities shall also ascertain on the spot the number of trees still standing and in case these are found to be less than 102, as he has been noted in the order of learned Divisional Commissioner dated 15.5.1970, the grantees shall pay to the Government the current market value for every tree cut and felled. 2.The petitioners had prayed in their review petition that the order dated 30.12.1996 may be modified to the extent that the value of trees has already been deposited by them with concerned authorities and they are no more required to deposited anything in lieu of the cost of the trees. A supplementary application has been filed later requesting that land as originally allotted (9-16 bighas) to both Shri Rama Nand and Shri Kishori Lai separately may remain with them. 3. Shri Dhan Sukh respondent No.2 was present on the last date of hearing while the notice upon Shri Bhagwan Chand, counsel for respondents No.2 to 8 has also been served for today but none have appeared on behalf the said respondents. Shri Giri Raj Chauhan, learned counsel for petitioners reiterated the contents of the review petition. 4. Perusal of the record shows that my learned predecessor has recorded a very detailed on 30.12.1996 tracing the whole history of the case and has finally confirmed the order of the learned Divisional Commissioner dated 15.5.1970 allotting land as under to: (i) Shri Rama Nand 7-10 bighas. (ii) Shri Kishori Lal 7-10 bighas. (iii) Shri Jiwanu Ram 4-00 bighas. (iv) Shri Dhan Sukh 2-00 bighas. 5. The learned Divisional Commissioner had taken into account in his order that there were 102 trees standing on the land in question. (ii) Shri Kishori Lal 7-10 bighas. (iii) Shri Jiwanu Ram 4-00 bighas. (iv) Shri Dhan Sukh 2-00 bighas. 5. The learned Divisional Commissioner had taken into account in his order that there were 102 trees standing on the land in question. The previous reports of the Gram Panchayat and the Forest Department also indicate that the area in question is close to a reserve forest and there is heavy regeneration of trees of Kail, deodar etc, on this land. The Divisional Commissioner while indicating in his order the quantum of land to be allotted to the parties directed that the trees should not be cut. The case tiles shows that Shri Kishori Lai had deposited Rs.5205-90/-as cost of trees through receipt dated 30.12.1964. Presumably Shri Rama Nand also did likewise. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) while recording her order on 30.12.1996 missed the point that the standing trees had already been paid for. Even the report of Shri B.B. Tandon then Deputy Commissioner Shimla (D.O. letter No.4743-reader/74 dated 24 December, 1974) indicated that the land in question has apple, plum and peach trees on the land and there is no mention of kail, deodar etc, and therefore to require payment of the cut trees at market value was not reasonable. 7.1 have care fully gone through the case files that cover a period of almost 40 years. My learned predecessor had effected closure to the same through her detailed order dated 30.12.1996 upholding the order of the learned Divisional Commissioner of 15.5.1970 regarding allotment of area to the different persons and there is no reason to review the same as no new point has been raised by the petitioners in the review petition. Rather it is observed that Shri Rama Nand and Shri Kishori Lai have been dragging the respondents who are poor Harijans through this prolonged process of litigation. 8. So far as the issue regarding payment of trees at market price is concerned, it is seen that keeping in view the thick growth on the land being allotted to the parties the Divisional Commissioner had directed that these should not be cut by the allottees. Since the report of the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla does not make any reference to Kail, deodar etc. Since the report of the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla does not make any reference to Kail, deodar etc. it appears that these had already been cut by those in possession of this area by the time he inspected the area. Since the order of the learned Divisional Commissioner dated 15.5.1970 had been violated on the specific .point by the allotees by clearing the area of Kail, deodar etc, trees the Financial Commissioners order dated 30.12.1996 requiring that market price of the cut trees be deposited by the allotees is quite in order and needs no interference. The review petition is therefore rejected. 9. Record of lower court be returned and the case file of this court be consigned to the record room after due completion. Announced in the open court today the 11th March, 2006.