Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 376 (HP)

SANTOSH KUMARI JAIN v. STATE OF H. P.

2010-03-03

DEV DARSHAN SUD

body2010
JUDGMENT Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral)-The petitioner challenges the settlement operations in Village Tikka Seri Nadaun, District Hamirpur. The grievance of the petitioner was that mutations have been entered into the name of dead persons, sale and purchase made by the petitioner is not being reflected in the revenue record and on a part of the land as detailed in the petition, which was in the ownership of the petitioner, a public path is shown to exist despite his established ownership. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s grievance that a purported public path has been shown to exist on his land in Khasra No. 146 has not been redressed. On 24.2.2009, this Court ordered:- “The learned Senior Additional Advocate General submits that the issue with regard to the path which exists on Khasra No. 146 (old) and Khasra No. 1740/1 (new) can also be looked into by the Settlement Officer, Dharamshala. Consequently, the Settlement Officer, Dharamshala is directed to look into this matter also for complete adjudication of this petition. Mr. Suneet Goel submits that other grievances of the petitioner had already been redressed by the respondents/State. The Court appreciates the manner in which other grievances of the petitioner had been redressed by the State itself.” 2. In compliance, the Settlement Officer has placed his report on the record of the case. The petitioner has filed objections to the report. On going through the report, and the submissions made in detail by the parties, I find that the issue regarding the existence or non-existence of the path has not been resolved satisfactorily. This is so because the Settlement Officer records that on behalf of the Notified Area Committee, Nadaun, it has been stated it does not possess this land, yet it has been correctly recorded in its possession as is the practice followed by the Settlement Department. The Settlement Officer also observes that the petitioner is making an allout effort to get the land recorded in her favour and to extinguish the easmentary rights of other persons whose houses the path serves. 3. The Settlement Officer also observes that the petitioner is making an allout effort to get the land recorded in her favour and to extinguish the easmentary rights of other persons whose houses the path serves. 3. Without entering into the controversy as to whether easementary rights of the parties are affected or not, more so because of the fact that the parties who claim such rights have not been impleaded in this petition, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Tehsildar, Nadaun to look into this aspect of the matter i.e. whether a public path exists on the land as asserted by the Settlement authorities or not. For this purpose he shall hear the petitioner and all interested parties and provide them with ample opportunity to place on record any material in support of their respective contentions. The Secretary of the Notified Area Committee shall also be called upon to show as to under what circumstances this land came to be recorded in favour of the Notified Area Committee. 4. Any party aggrieved by that order/finding of the Tehsildar shall be at liberty to challenge the order in a court of competent jurisdiction. There shall be no order as to costs. However, it is made clear that before proceeding in the matter, the Tehsildar shall issue notice to all the affected parties and give them a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 5. All miscellaneous applications stand disposed of. All the interim orders stand vacated.