Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1179 (HP)

Bhim Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2017-10-18

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2017
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “(i) That the order dated 22.09.2010 contained in Annexure P-3 passed by the Respondent No. 2 may kindly be quashed after issuing writ of certiorari. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed not to change the revenue entry existing in the name of the petitioner by issuing writ of mandamus. (iii) To direct the respondents to produce the entire record pertaining to the present case for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. (iv) Any other relief to which the petitioner is found entitled by this Hon’ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in her favour and against the respondents. (v) Cost of this petition be as well awarded in favour of the petitioner & against the respondents.” 2. Case of the petitioner is that land measuring 3-17-11 bighas (Kharyatar), situated in Muhal Katwandi/72, Illaqua Tilli, Tehsil Chachoit, District Mandi was recorded in the ownership of the petitioner and others, but was in the exclusive possession of the petitioner as well as one Sh. Hem Prabh. Vide mutation No. 101, dated 24.05.1989, share of Hem Prabh also stood mutated in favour of the petitioner, which fact was duly reduced into a note in jamabandi for the year 1984-1985. Consolidation proceedings started in Muhal Katwandi before the year 1992 and the land subject matter of the petition, stood allotted to the petitioner in the said consolidation operation by way of partition. Khasra number of the said land was subsequently changed to Khasra No. 465 and as per the petitioner, respondents No. 3 and 4 with a mala-fide intent of disturbing the plot of the petitioner, filed a revision petition under Section 54 of the Himachal Pradesh Consolidation Act, demanding that land be allotted to them from Khasra No. 563/1, measuring 1-10-0 bighas on the basis of judgment and decree dated 20.12.1982, passed by the learned Additional Sub Judge, Mandi in Civil Suit No. 131/81, titled Smt. Kanauri Devi vs. Daulat Ram and Others. Revision so filed by the said respondents was allowed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division, which order stands assailed by way of this writ petition. Revision so filed by the said respondents was allowed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division, which order stands assailed by way of this writ petition. As per the petitioner, order passed by respondent No. 2 is prima facie bad as the land in issue stood rightly allotted to the petitioner post consolidation proceedings and respondents No. 3 and 4 already stood compensated by way of allotment of land to them from other Khasra numbers in the process of consolidation itself. 3. No other point was urged. 4. Respondents No. 3 and 4 by way of their reply have contested the claim of the petitioner inter-alia on the ground that there was no illegality or infirmity with the order passed by respondent No. 2. As per the said respondents, though land comprised in Khasra No. 563, measuring 3-7-11 bighas was recorded in the ownership of the parties, however, petitioner was not in exclusive possession of said Khasra number. As per the said respondents, Khasra No. 563 was earlier denoted by khasra No. 193, as per jamabandi for the year 1961-1962 and at that time, parties were recorded as Gair Marusi. In 1975, parties became owners of the land including Khasra No. 563 and the share of the parties was 1/3rd each, as is evident from copy of mutation No. 36, dated 27.07.1975. Further, as per respondents No. 3 and 4, entries reflecting petitioner to be in exclusive possession of Khasra No. 563 in revenue records were erroneous, which stood challenged by way of a Civil Suit, which suit of the said respondents stood decreed in the year 1982. It is further the stand of the said respondents that as per operative part of the judgment, they were shown in possession of Khasra No. 563/1 and though necessary entries were carried out in the Girdawari for the year 1979-1980, but these entries were not carried forward in subsequent jamabandis and when they came to know about the same, they moved an application before the Assistant Consolidation Officer for correction of the same, but the same was not done. In these circumstances, they filed proceedings before Consolidation Officer, who also did not took any action. In these circumstances, they filed proceedings before Consolidation Officer, who also did not took any action. When the said respondents approached the Settlement Officer, he directed them to file appropriate proceedings before Director Consolidation and this led to their filing revision petition before the appropriate authority under Section 54 of the Act, who has correctly passed the appropriate orders, which call for no interference. They thus pray for dismissal of petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the pleadings. 6. It is not in dispute that in a Civil Suit filed by Smt. Kanauri Devi, who is one of the respondents before this Court, i.e. Civil Suit No. 131/81, titled Smt. Kanauri Devi vs. Daulat Ram and Others, the Court of learned Additional Sub Judge, Mandi vide judgment and decree dated 22.09.1981/24.09.1981, had granted the following relief in favour of the plaintiff therein: “RELIEF: As a result of my above findings, the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed to the extent that the suit land forms the joint property of plaintiffs and defendants alongwith their other joint property and that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land and they are entitled to enjoy that possession till they are dispossessed in accordance with law. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs to the suit. Decree sheet be prepared in accordance with this judgment and on completion this file be consigned to the general record room.” 7. The present petitioner was also a defendant in the said suit. Now, in this background, when the order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi is perused, the same demonstrates that all that the said authority has directed is this that the entries be incorporated in the revenue records in consonance with the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Sub Judge, Mandi in Civil Suit No. 131/81. Relevant portion of the order so passed by the said authority is quoted herein-below: “I have considered the arguments of both the parties and carefully perused the case file. A suit No. 131/81 for declaration and injunction filed by the petitioners before the Ld. Addl. Sub Judge, Mandi and the same was decided on 20.12.1982 in favour of the petitioners. The respondents went on appeal before the Ld. Addl. District Judge, Mandi and it was decided against them on 12.10.1995. A suit No. 131/81 for declaration and injunction filed by the petitioners before the Ld. Addl. Sub Judge, Mandi and the same was decided on 20.12.1982 in favour of the petitioners. The respondents went on appeal before the Ld. Addl. District Judge, Mandi and it was decided against them on 12.10.1995. For the execution of the order of learned court sent a letter to the Tehsildar vide letter No. 873 dated 01.07.1983 and from the perusal of copy of Khasra Girdwari of Mouza Katwandi/72 for year 1979-80 a note has been incorporated that as per order of Ld. Addl. Sub Judge, Mandi Kh. No. 563/1 measuring 1-10-0 bighas recorded in possession of Smt. Kinori Devi etc. The Tehsildar, Chachyot also sent compliance report vide No. 442, dated 18th December, 1984 mentioning therein that necessary entry in revenue record has been effected. This entry should also have been incorporated in the succeeding jamabandi but from the perusal of copies of jamabandi provided for the year 1979-80 and for year 1984-85 this entry has not been carried forward which is a mandatory provision under H.P. Land Revenue Act. On the above observations I accept this petition and order that the order dated 20.12.1982 given in Suit No. 131/81 of Ld. Addl. Sub Judge, Mandi be implemented. The Tehsildar, Chachyot shall incorporate the entry as per orders and send compliance report to this Court also. Both the parties be called at the time of effecting the entries in revenue record. It is also ordered that send the names of revenue officials below who is in fault for not recording the entry in the succeeding jamabandi after the entry in Khasra Girdawari for the year 1979-80 in Muhal Katwandhi/72 so that suitable action can be taken against the defaulting officials. A copy of this order be sent to the Tehsildar, Chachyot with the copies of supporting documents for compliance and the file of this Court be consigned to General Record Room after due completion.” 8. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention that this Court has not been called upon to adjudicate as to whether the findings which stand returned by the learned Civil Court in Civil Suit No. 131/81 are sustainable in law or not. Now the grounds on which the petitioner has challenged the impugned order already stand decided against him by a Civil Court in Civil Suit No. 131/81. Now the grounds on which the petitioner has challenged the impugned order already stand decided against him by a Civil Court in Civil Suit No. 131/81. Findings so returned by the learned Civil Court against the present petitioner having attained finality is not in dispute. In this background, when it stands concluded against the petitioner that he is not in exclusive possession of the land, subject matter of the present petition, it cannot be said that the order which has been passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner is either perverse or not borne out from the records of the case. Not only this, in fact learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi has only passed an order, whereby he has directed that the findings returned in Civil Suit No. 131/81 be implemented. Declaration given by a Civil Court obviously has to be implemented by the authorities concerned and this is all that has been ordered by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. Order so passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, therefore, does not calls for any interference. The genesis of the challenge to the said order is totally misconceived, as learned Divisional Commissioner has not returned any findings, which are not borne out from the records, as the said order is in harmony with the judgment and decree, dated 22.09.1981/24.09.1981, passed by the Court of learned Additional Sub Judge, Mandi in Civil Suit No. 131/81. 9. In view of the above discussion, as there is no merit in the writ petition, accordingly the same is dismissed, so also miscellaneous applications, if any. No order as to costs.