Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 579 (HP)

AMRIT LAL v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-06-21

A.M.KHANWILKAR, R.B.MISRA

body2013
JUDGMENT A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. 1. HEARD counsel for the parties. 2. BY this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside of Annexures P2 and P3. Annexure P2 is the letter of allotment issued by the Deputy Director of Industries in favour of M/s. Vardhman Textiles Limited and Annexure P3 is lease deed, dated 24th September, 2010, which is consequence of the said allotment letter. As regards the grievance of the petitioner that due to allotment of the land on lease basis to respondent No. 8, his passage to the land, bearing khasra Nos. 236/1 and 176/1, has been obstructed and including, obstruction of water channel in khasra No. 236 as well as khasra Nos. 109, 114 and 190. 3. IN response to this grievance, respondents No. 2 to 4 State Authorities have filed affidavit of Mr. J.S. Rana, Director of Industries, Himachal Pradesh, dated 3rd January, 2012. In response to averments made in paragraphs No. 3 to 5 of the writ petition, the said respondents have asserted thus: "3 & 4. That the contents of these paras are admitted being matter of record. However, it is submitted that the land comprised in khasra No.176/1 measuring 013 Bigha and khasra No. 236/1 measuring 003 Bigha total 016 Bigha in Village Bhatolikalan and Village Katha Tehsil Baddi, District Solan HP has been allotted to respondent No.8 i.e. M/s Verdhman Textiles Ltd Sai Road Baddi District Solan HP and not to respondent No. 7 as mentioned by the petitioner in this para. 5. That the contents of this para are wrong, hence denied. It is submitted that the petitioner is wrong in contending that the said khasra Nos. i.e. 176 and 236 are the Village road/Path for the use of general Public and khasra No. 236 is a water channel for the purpose of cultivation of the Villages. Whereas in fact there is no path/Road and any channel existing on at the site for use of general Public. A copy of the inspection report dated 23.7.2010 of the committee constituted by the Govt. for transfer of land to the Department of Industries further leading out to Industrial units is enclosed here with at Annexure R1." 4. Whereas in fact there is no path/Road and any channel existing on at the site for use of general Public. A copy of the inspection report dated 23.7.2010 of the committee constituted by the Govt. for transfer of land to the Department of Industries further leading out to Industrial units is enclosed here with at Annexure R1." 4. CONSIDERING the stand taken by the said respondents, in our opinion, the petition raises issues which are disputed questions of facts and cannot be adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere in this writ petition. We place on record the stand taken by respondent No. 8 that the petition also deserves to be dismissed because of non disclosure of material facts and in particular, about several proceedings pending between the petitioner, his family members and respondent No. 8, as referred to in preliminary objection No. 2 of the replyaffidavit filed by respondent No. 8. Taking over all view of the matter, we decline to interfere with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to other appropriate proceedings, as may be advised, which can be considered on its own merits, in accordance with law. 5. WHILE parting, we may place on record the submission of the petitioner that the lease executed in favour of respondent No. 6. IS void after the decision of this Court in the case of Khatri Ram and another versus State of H.P. & others, being CWP No. 1077 of 2006. In the first place, this plea is not expressly taken in the writ petition. In any case, even that question can be considered in appropriate proceedings, if filed by the petitioner.