Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 769 (HP)

Nain Singh Tomar v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-08-23

A.M.KHANWILKAR, V.K.SHARMA

body2013
JUDGEMENT A.M.KHANWILKAR, C.J. - 1. WE have heard counsel for the parties. 2. LEARNED Advocate General has placed on record copy of Notification, dated 21st August, 2013, issued under the orders of Governor, Himachal Pradesh, in exercise of powers vested under Section 33 of H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954, directing that the record of rights in respect of revenue estates Shilai and Kiari Gundaha of Tehsil Shilai in Sirmour District be specially revised. As a consequence of this Notification, the Authorities will now undertake revision of the record of rights. They would consider objections from all concerned in accordance with law. In that case, the relief, as claimed in the present petition, does not survive for consideration. We are not inclined to issue any direction to the Authorities to complete the revision process within stipulated period. Because, the Notification has been issued very recently on 21st August, 2013. Further, there is no reason to doubt that Authorities will not take that process forward expeditiously. Moreover, as of now it is not possible to comprehend the logistical issues that may arise whilst the revision process is on. 3. WE find merits in the submission of the petitioner that the Authorities should not undertake successive demarcation of the same land (in question) and in particular, because of the changed situation. For, the State has decided to undertake the special revision of record of rights during which all aspects will be dealt with in accordance with law. 4. COUNSEL for respondent No. 5, however, placed reliance on the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 2nd January, 2012. Notably, the petitioner was not a party to the said writ petition filed by respondent No.5. In that sense, the decision may not be binding on the petitioner, though the Authorities may be bound by the same. At the same time, the Authorities cannot be expected to undertake multiple proceedings, especially when the revision of record of rights of the area is underway in terms of Notification, dated 21st August, 2013. The copy of original Mussavi was produced before us by the learned Advocate General, which, we noticed, is in tattered condition. On the basis of such record, we fail to understand as to how demarcation process can be taken forward. The copy of original Mussavi was produced before us by the learned Advocate General, which, we noticed, is in tattered condition. On the basis of such record, we fail to understand as to how demarcation process can be taken forward. As aforesaid, in view of the decision of the State Government to undertake special revision of record of rights, all objections will be duly considered by the appropriate Authorities in due course. It will be open to respondent No. 5 to raise objections, if any, which can be duly considered by the said Authority. 5. EXCEPT these observations, nothing more is required to be done in the present petition. The same is disposed of. All the pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.