Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 17 (HP)

HARI KRISHAN LAL v. SALOCHNA DEVI

2009-01-06

R.B.MISRA, RAJIV SHARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J.- This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 21.8.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 1356 of 1996. 2. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this Letters Patent Appeal are that notification under section 14 (1) of the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for brevity sake) was issued on 30.6.1986. Thereafter a scheme was framed. Predecessor-in-interest of Sh. Pawan Kumar (deceased) and respondents No. 4 to 6 were allotted land measuring 1 kanal 9 marlas of land. Proforma respondent Sh. Prem Chand preferred objections under section 30 (2) of the Act before the Consolidation Officer on 11.2.1987. Consolidation Officer allowed the objections on 30.8.1988. Thereafter predecessor-in-interest of respondents No. 1 to 3, Sh. Pawan Kumar, preferred appeal under section 30 (3) of the Act before the Settlement Officer. The Settlement Officer allowed the appeal on 4.10.1994. Appellant preferred a revision petition before the Additional Director Land Records, Shimla. He partly allowed the same on 6.2.1996. The predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.1 to 3 Sh. Pawan Kumar, Ramesh Kumar and Rajesh Kumar assailed order dated 6.2.1996 by way of CWP No. 1356 of 1996. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 21.8.2003. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 21.8.2003. 3. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 21.8.2003 is not sustainable. He then contended that the learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration the letter and spirit of the Act while allowing the writ petition. 4. Learned Advocate General and Mr. Ramakant Sharma have supported the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 6. The Himachal Pradesh Assembly has enacted the Act called “The Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971. Chapter-II thereof provides for determination of standard area and treatment of fragments. Chapter-III provides for revision and correction of maps and records and consolidation of holdings. 6. The Himachal Pradesh Assembly has enacted the Act called “The Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971. Chapter-II thereof provides for determination of standard area and treatment of fragments. Chapter-III provides for revision and correction of maps and records and consolidation of holdings. Section 14 provides that the State Government may declare in the interest of the general public and for the purposes of better cultivation of land to frame a scheme of consolidation of any estate or a group of estates or a sub division of an estate. However, such declaration is required to be published in the official gazette. The effect of declaration under section 14 is provided under section 15. Section 17 provides for revision and correction of records. Section 18 provides for publication of correct records. Declaration regarding revision of records is provided under section 19. Section 20 provides for preparation of statement of plots and tenure holders. The objections are to be received in the manner provided under section 21. Section 22 provides for preparation of consolidation scheme. Section 23 provides for scheme to provide for compensation and section 24 provides for occupancy tenancies. Section 28 provides for publication of draft scheme and the same is to be confirmed under section 29. Section 30 provides for repartition. Preparation of record-of-rights is provided under section 31 and right to possession of new holdings is provided under section 32 of the Act. 7. In the present case, notification under section 14 (1) was issued on 30.6.1986. A scheme was prepared under the Act. Respondents No.1 to 6 were allotted land. Proforma respondent Prem Chand has filed objection under section 30 (2) before the Consolidation Officer. His grievance was that he has not allotted any share in Khasra No.180. The Consolidation Officer has not issued any notice to respondents No.1 to 6 and he divided old khasra No. 237 owned and possessed by respondents No.1 to 6 into khasra No. 237/2/1 and 237/2/2 by order dated 30.8.1988. In all, land measuring 0-4 malras was taken out from khasra No. 237/2/1 and was allotted to proforma respondent Sh. Prem Chand. The land to the extent of 0-5 marlas, out of Khasra No. 237/2/2, was allotted to one Harbans Lal and others. In all, land measuring 0-4 malras was taken out from khasra No. 237/2/1 and was allotted to proforma respondent Sh. Prem Chand. The land to the extent of 0-5 marlas, out of Khasra No. 237/2/2, was allotted to one Harbans Lal and others. Thus land to the extent of 0-9 marlas was taken out from Khasra No. 237 owned and possessed by respondents No.1 to 6 and their predecessor-in-interest. They were left with total holding of 1 kanal land. Sh. Pawan Kumar predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.1 to 3 preferred an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) against the order dated 30.8.1988. The Settlement Officer has found that Prem Chand has been allotted 23-6 kanals ordinary land against his entitlement of 23 kanals. Against 13-7 kanals, he has been allotted 13-10 kalans of land in exchange vide resolution No. 27 dated 8.11.1987 after mutual compromise in which he has agreed to accept 0-2 standard less land and got 0-5 standard more land and one Sh. Hans Raj has been allotted 106-18 ordinary land against 105-11 kanals and 55-2 kanals standard land against 551 kanals. Respondents No.1 to 6 were allotted 0-4 marlas less standard land and have been allotted only 1 kanal ordinary land against 2-4 kanals due to which they have been allotted 1-0 kanal less ordinary land. Thereafter on consideration of the deficiency of ordinary and standard land allotted to respondents No.1 to 6 and to increase their entitlement in khasra No. 237/2, the Settlement Officer passed a detailed order. The operative portion of the same has already been reproduced in the judgment by the learned Single Judge. Prem Chand, proforma respondent and Harbans Lal have not assailed the order of the Settlement Officer. The same has been assailed only by the appellant Sh. Hari Krishan Lal. He was not party in the appeal filed by deceased Pawan Kumar before the Settlement Officer and also before the Consolidation Officer. Sh. Hari Krishan Lal and other share holders had no land along side the road where the land of respondents No.1 to 6 is situated. The land measuring 1 kanal 9 marlas was allotted to respondents No.1 to 6 in the old khasra No. 237 to complete their land holdings. As noticed above, Sh Prem Chand proforma respondent has filed objections under section 30 (2) of the Act before the Settlement Officer. The land measuring 1 kanal 9 marlas was allotted to respondents No.1 to 6 in the old khasra No. 237 to complete their land holdings. As noticed above, Sh Prem Chand proforma respondent has filed objections under section 30 (2) of the Act before the Settlement Officer. He has filed the objections for allotment of his share only in Khasra No. 180. This Khasra number was not subject matter of the allotment of the land to respondents No.1 to 6 in Khasra No. 237 old. No land was allotted to Sh. Prem Chand and Hari Krishan Lal by the Settlement Officer. 8. The Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 is a complete code. There is a detailed procedure the manner in which the publication of draft scheme is to be done under section 27 and the confirmation of the scheme is provided under section 29 of the Act. The scheme is magna carta as far as the consolidation proceedings are concerned. The letter and spirit of the Act is to consolidate the lands in the compact blocks to increase the cultivation. Detailed procedure is to be adopted before the scheme is confirmed. Thereafter there is a detailed procedure provided under section 30 for repartition. The person aggrieved can file objection and appeal as provided under this section. Sh Prem Chand has preferred objection under section 30 (2) of the Act before the Consolidation Officer. Admittedly, respondents No.1 to 6 were not heard by the Consolidation Officer. The Settlement Officer in appeal preferred under section 30 (3) of the Act has correctly appreciated the facts and set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer. He has restored the land allotted to respondents No. 1 to 6. The Consolidation Officer and Additional Director have passed the orders against law. Their orders have fragmented the land instead of consolidating the holdings. Respondents No. 1 to 6 have placed on record of CWP No. 1356 of 1996 copy of tatima (Annexure P-8). The land allotted to the appellant on the roadside is between the land of respondents No.1 to 6. In fact, the learned Single Judge has recorded that the appellant has no land abutting the road in the block in which respondents No.1 to 6 hold land measuring 1-9 malras in khasra No. 237. The appellant was not a party before the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer. In fact, the learned Single Judge has recorded that the appellant has no land abutting the road in the block in which respondents No.1 to 6 hold land measuring 1-9 malras in khasra No. 237. The appellant was not a party before the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer. The appellant has failed to substantiate how he was aggrieved by the orders of the Settlement Officer. The proforma respondent alone had filed objections under section 30 (2) of the Act. Sh. Pawan Kumar deceased had assailed the order of the Consolidation Officer before the Settlement Officer. 9. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the facts and law. 10. Consequently, there is no merit in the present Letters Patent Appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs.