Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 777 (HP)

Man Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2012-11-01

V.K.AHUJA

body2012
JUDGMENT : V.K. Ahuja, J. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division, exercising the power of Director of Consolidation under H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971, dated 19.2.2010. 2. A notice of the petition was issued to the respondents, who filed replies. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record placed before me. 4. The plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments was that Khasra No. 495 (old), Khasra No. 451 (new) was allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, namely, Smt. Banti Devi, which fact is also borne out from the copy of revision petition filed under Section 54 of the H.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act by the applicants, namely, respondents. It has been specifically alleged in Para (v) of the revision that they came to know about the wrong allotment of land in the name of predecessor-in-interest of petitioner namely Smt. Banti Devi, from whom the land has been mutated in the name of the present respondent through a Will. Thus, this fact was not denied that the land was allotted in the name of Banti Devi, but it was alleged that the allotment was wrong, which plea was raised before the Director of Consolidation under the provisions of the Act. 5. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the private respondents were that the land was "Khalwara" having temple and should not have been allotted to the petitioner earlier, who agreed for this. Thus, since the Director (Consolidation) had held the land to be kept joint as its was "Khalwara" having temple, those findings are not being set aside and they are being affirmed. The other question left open is that whether the petitioner deserves to be compensated, since it was allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner exclusively at the time of passing of previous order. 6. The contention put-forth by the learned counsel for the private respondents is rejected, since this Court is not disturbing the findings of the learned Divisional Commissioner, vide which he had held that the land should be kept joint, since it was a "Khalwara". 6. The contention put-forth by the learned counsel for the private respondents is rejected, since this Court is not disturbing the findings of the learned Divisional Commissioner, vide which he had held that the land should be kept joint, since it was a "Khalwara". However, the only question left open to be determined by the Divisional Commissioner, is as to whether the petitioner had to be compensated in case Khasra No. 451 is allotted to his predecessor-in-interest is kept as joint and as to whether the respondents made any statement that they will not claim any land in lieu of the land comprised in Khasra No. 451 being kept as joint. 7. In deciding the petition, the Divisional Commissioner had called for the report of the A.C.O. and considered the said report Annexure P-2 and thereafter held that Khasra No. 451 should be entered as in a joint possession of the parties and the shares were also specified in the said order. It is, therefore, clear that the Director of Consolidation while exercising his powers and considering the report submitted by the A.C.O., has held that the land is "Khalwara" and it should be kept in joint ownership of the parties. However, the next question which arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner had agreed that once the land comprised in Khasra No. 451, which was allotted to his predecessor-in-interest, should be kept as joint and whether he was entitled to be compensated in that regard or not, that point regrettably has not been considered by the Director of Consolidation and he made an oblique reference to the report of the A.C.O. but did not consider as to whether any statement was made by the parties that in lieu of Khasra No. 451, no land will be allotted to Man Singh, the present petitioner. The A.C.O. also observed in his report that both the parties are satisfied and that the respondents are desiring that Khasra No. 451 be kept joint, but they are not prepared to give any land to the present petitioner in lieu of the said land. The A.C.O. also observed in his report that both the parties are satisfied and that the respondents are desiring that Khasra No. 451 be kept joint, but they are not prepared to give any land to the present petitioner in lieu of the said land. The statements of the parties made before the A.C.O. were not considered by the Director of Consolidation and the Director of Consolidation should have considered the point that in case Khasra No. 451 is kept joint, whether the petitioner is debarred from claiming his share in the said Khasra Number, which was allotted to him or whether he needs to be compensated for keeping the land joint of the parties. 8. Therefore, the matter is remanded to the Director of Consolidation, who shall consider the matter afresh in the light of the above observations referring to the report of the A.C.O. as well as the statements of the parties made in this regard that they do not want any land in lieu of the land comprised in Khasra No. 451. All these facts shall be considered by the Director of Consolidation and the said order is set aside partly. The matter shall be considered afresh by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division, exercising the power of Director of Consolidation and the decision shall be taken by him within a period of four months, as far as possible. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division on 3rd December, 2012 and he shall try to dispose of the case within four months thereafter, keeping in view the observations made as above. 9. In view of the above, the petition stands allowed accordingly. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.