Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1312 (HP)

Khushi Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2014-09-19

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2014
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner instituted Civil Suit bearing No. 74 of 1986 in the Court of learned Sub Judge (1st Class), Nurpur for declaration to the effect that they were tenants in equal shares over the suit land comprised in Khata No. 126, Khatauni No. 385, Khasra Nos. at present 1219, 1220, 1221, 1223, 1224, 952, 953, 956, 956/1, 958, 959, 1127, 1147, 1149, measuring 3-74-71 hectares, situated in Tika Baduhi, Mauza Khanni, Tehsil Nurpur, District, Kangra, H.P. The suit was decreed by the learned Sub Judge on 25.2.1988. 2. Respondent-State filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25.2.1988 before the learned District Judge, Kangra, bearing Civil Appeal No. 64 of 1988. The learned District Judge, Kangra, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub Judge (1st Class), Nurpur and transferred the matter to the Collector, Kangra District to decide the suit in accordance with Sections 3 & 4 of the H.P. Village Common Land (Vesting and Utilization) Act, 1974. He passed orders on 1.6.1999. The Collector held that respondents have become owners of the land under Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. 3. The respondents filed the review petition before the Sub Divisional Officer exercising powers of the Collector against the order dated 1.6.1999. The review petition filed by the respondent-State was also beyond limitation i.e. 90 days. The Sub Divisional Collector, Nurpur, reviewed the order dated 1.6.1999 on 19.5.2005. The petitioner filed appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner, against the order dated 19.5.2005. He dismissed the same on 20.3.2009. The fact of the matter is that the earlier orders were passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (C) exercising the powers of Collector on 1.6.1999. The review petition was filed in the year 2005. The limitation prescribed under Section 9-A of the H.P. Village Common Lands (Vesting and Utilization) Amendment Act, 2001 is 90 days. The petitioner has not been issued even a notice before the order was reviewed on 19.5.2005. Since the earlier order was a nullity, it would not be cured by the subsequent order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner on 20.3.2009. It is also evident from the order dated 19.5.2005 that the report from the Revenue Officer was called for. The petitioner was not associated during the pendency of enquiry. 4. Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed. Since the earlier order was a nullity, it would not be cured by the subsequent order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner on 20.3.2009. It is also evident from the order dated 19.5.2005 that the report from the Revenue Officer was called for. The petitioner was not associated during the pendency of enquiry. 4. Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed. Annexure P14 dated 19.5.2005 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and Annexure P-16, order dated 20.3.2009 passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Kangra are quashed and set aside. The respondent-State is directed to pay Rs. 5000/- costs to the petitioner. Pending applications, if any shall stand disposed of.