Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2080 (HP)

Sarwan Kumar v. State of H. P.

2016-09-27

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2016
JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. This case has a chequered history. In 1995, the petitioner made an application to the Deputy Commissioner for grant of land so as to enable him to carry on his vocation of carpenter. Such application was got investigated from the Tehsildar, Badsar, who submitted his report and recommended sanction of one marla of land over Khasra No. 337/1 in Village Jamli, Badsar in favour of the petitioner. On the basis of the report, the Deputy Commissioner recommended the case of the petitioner to the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi for grant of aforesaid land to the petitioner on 99 years lease. 2. However, before the Divisional Commissioner could take any decision on the basis of the recommendations, some of the inhabitants of the area raised objection against the grant of lease and filed a Civil Suit in the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Badar, which was eventually dismissed on 17.1.2002 and it is thereafter the Collector Hamirpur allotted the aforesaid land on 10 years lease to the petitioner on 16.6.2002. 3. Thereafter, in the year 2015, some of the inhabitants of the area filed CWP No. 2367 of 2015 against the petitioner on the ground that he had encroached upon the government land and such proceedings were stated to be pending before the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Dhatwal. On 10.8.2015, this Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Dhatwal to pass appropriate orders within six weeks after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 4. However, before any decision could have been taken in the above referred proceedings, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition, claiming therein the following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for lease of Khasra No. 337/1 measuring 1 marla on the basis of recommendations made vide annexure P-1, with further directions to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in possession of said land. (ii) In the alternative it is prayed that direction may very kindly be given to the respondent to grant this small piece of land to the petitioner being a landless person and a houseless person, so that he may live with dignity.” 5. (ii) In the alternative it is prayed that direction may very kindly be given to the respondent to grant this small piece of land to the petitioner being a landless person and a houseless person, so that he may live with dignity.” 5. The respondents have contested the petition by filing reply, wherein it has been averred that the petitioner has encroached upon the government land comprised in Khasra No. 1072/832/1 measuring 0-00-38 hectares situated in village Jamli and in addition to this land he had also encroached the land which was leased out to him by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 16.6.2002. It is averred that the lease granted by the Collector was subject to the condition that the petitioner could raise kachha shed over the same, but the petitioner has violated the terms of the lease by raising pucca shed and even the lease period had expired. It is further averred that in compliance to the directions passed by this Court in CWP No. 2367 of 2015 (supra) the Assistant collector 2nd Grade has already passed ejectment orders and the same has been placed on record as Annexure R-1. On the basis of such pleadings the respondents have prayed for the dismissal of the instant petition. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case. 6. At the outset, it may be observed that we had a complete loss to understand as to how the instant petition is maintainable, more particularly in teeth of the directions already passed by this Court on 10.8.2015 in CWP No. 2367 of 2015, which reads thus:- “5. In the given circumstances, we deem it proper to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Dhatwal, to pass appropriate orders, after hearing both the parties, within six weeks.” 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was a party to the aforesaid writ petition and therefore, was aware of these directions, yet without assailing the aforesaid order petitioner wants this Court to direct the respondents to consider his case for lease of land in dispute and permit him to continue in possession. This virtually amounts to asking this Court to sit in judgment over its earlier orders passed in CWP No. 2367 of 2015, which obviously is not permissible under law. 8. This virtually amounts to asking this Court to sit in judgment over its earlier orders passed in CWP No. 2367 of 2015, which obviously is not permissible under law. 8. That apart, as per the directions of this Court the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade was directed to decide the lis in a time bound manner and the same has now culminated in ejectment orders being passed against the petitioner and the said order, as informed by the petitioner, has been assailed before the appellate authority. Therefore, acceding to the prayer of the petitioner at this stage would virtually render the proceeding pending before the competent authority as redundant and infructuous, which again is not permissible under law. 9. For all the above stated reasons, we are of the firm view that not only is the present petition devoid of any merit, but is a clever attempt to stultify the proceedings pending before the competent authority. The petitioner cannot by resorting to the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court stifle and scuttle the legitimate proceedings and thereby thwart the final result of the pending action before the competent authority. To say the least, the petitioner has abused the process of law and in normal circumstances, a petition of this nature would have invited heavy costs, however, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner is a poor person, we refrain from doing so. 10. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any. However, before parting it needs to be clarified that the authorities shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observations made and findings if any recorded in this judgment. Costs easy.