Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 711 (HP)

Manohar Lal Khullar v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-08-02

A.M.KHANWILKAR, V.K.SHARMA

body2013
JUDGEMENT A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. - 1. HEARD counsel for the parties. 2. THIS petition has been filed as public interest litigation. The respondents have raised preliminary objections; firstly on the ground that the petition is not bonafide but motivated petition, inasmuch as the petitioner was tenant of respondent No. 5 and was evicted by respondent No. 5 from the tenanted premises, as a result of that action, the petitioner has filed this petition out of vengeance. Secondly, the petitioner is neither resident of the locality in question nor is he residing in the State, anymore. This factual position has been stated on affidavit, which has remained uncontroverted. Thirdly, the petitioner is challenging orders passed by the Statutory Authority, which were amenable to statutory appeal. The petitioner, instead of availing the said remedy, has resorted to present petition, as public interest litigation. The other preliminary objection taken by the respondents, is that, the petitioner is assailing the decision of the Collector (Settlement), passed as back as on 1st August, 1990, by way of present petition filed on 10th September, 207. In other words, the relief claimed by the . petitioner is otherwise barred by laches. We are in agreement with the preliminary objections taken by the respondents. The petitioner cannot be permitted to espouse his personal cause in the name of public interest litigation. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the order passed by the statutory authority, he ought to have resorted to remedy of appeal, as provided by law, if he had locus to do so. The fact that the petitioner has Petrol Pump in the State, does not belie the factual position asserted by the respondents on affidavit that he is neither the resident of the locality nor of the State as such. In that sense, the petitioner cannot be permitted to pursue the present petition, moreso as public interest litigation. 3. FURTHER , it is indisputable that the orders which are questioned in the present petition were passed in the year 1990 and this petition has been filed almost after a lapse of 17 years therefrom. To overcome this argument, counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the reply-affidavit filed by respondents No.1 to 4, in which, it is stated that action was initiated against private respondent No.5, being non-Himachali and non-agriculturist, under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 on 24.4.2001. To overcome this argument, counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the reply-affidavit filed by respondents No.1 to 4, in which, it is stated that action was initiated against private respondent No.5, being non-Himachali and non-agriculturist, under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 on 24.4.2001. It is admitted in paragraph 4 of the reply-affidavit that the said proceedings remained un-decided till March, 2008. Even so, we cannot entertain the present petition as public interest litigation at the instance of the petitioner herein. 4. SO far as the action to be taken against respondent No.5 by the Appropriate Authority is concerned, we suo motu direct respondents No.1 to 4 to ensure that action initiated under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, should be taken to its logical end, expeditiously and concluded within 3 months from today, if pending before the Authority or before the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, and is not disposed of so far. Counsel for the petitioner has also invited our attention to the report of Field Kanungo, Nurpur, dated 14th February, 2000. However, that may be relevant for deciding the proceedings pending against respondent No.5 and we are not inclined to examine the efficacy of the said document. Even the fact, stated across the Bar, by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the Settlement Collector has been set aside in some civil proceedings, need not be examined in the present petition. Further, we have no manner of doubt that the Appropriate Authorities/Revenue Authorities will proceed in the matter, in accordance with law and take that action to its logical end. Nothing more is required to be done in the present petition. The same is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.