Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 810 (HP)

Gian Chand v. State Of H. P.

2017-07-18

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, SANJAY KAROL

body2017
JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. (Oral) - By way of this writ Petition, the Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: "(i) That the impugned communication dated 27.10.2016 issued by respondent No. 2 contained in Annexure P-8 may kindly be set aside and quashed. (ii) That the other orders passed by the Education Department and by any other authority on the basis of Annexure P-8 may also kindly be quashed and set aside. (iii) That the Education Department may very kindly be directed to initiate proceedings against respondent No. 7 for removing the encroachment which has been done by way of constructing a house over Khasra No. 645/413 and Khasra No. 419. (iv) That the respondent No. 7 may kindly be directed to pay all the monetary benefits which he has received in the form of rent from Civil Supply Corporation to the Education Department alongwith upto date interest. (v) That the Education Department may very kindly be directed to got demarcate the entire land of Government Senior Secondary School Baldwara and if encroachment is being found in that eventuality to start appropriate legal proceedings against the encroachers. (vi) That the State of H.P. may kindly be directed to hold an enquiry and to fix the liability of the officers who are responsible for not taking action against the respondent No. 7 who is an encroacher. (vii) That the respondent may kindly be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to the case of the Petitioner for the kind perusal of this Hon''ble Court. (viii) That any other order, which this Hon''ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be passed in favour of the Petitioner and against the respondents in the interest of justice." 2. Petitioner claims himself to be President of School Management Committee of Government Senior Secondary School Baldwara, District Mandi, H.P. and as per the averments made in the Petition, the School Management Committee has duly authorized him by way of a resolution to approach this Court qua the dispute, which has arisen on account of respondent No. 2 granting permission in favour of the private respondents for exchange of land in lieu of land encroached upon by respondent No. 7 of the School concerned. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully perused the pleadings. 4. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully perused the pleadings. 4. Vide impugned Annexure P-8, which is a communication, dated 27th October, 2016, addressed by Under Secretary (Revenue) to Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Under Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh has communicated the approval of exchange of land referred therein in favour of respondent No. 7, on the conditions contemplated therein. Respondent No. 7 in his reply has explained that in the course of demarcation, which was carried out, it was found that the house of respondent No. 7 was constructed on Government land. Private respondent made a statement that as the said land on which he had constructed the house, was in his possession from the time of his forefathers and had come to his share during family settlement/partition, on which he had already constructed a pucca slab house, he was ready and willing to transfer the land in lieu of the same from his own land. Application to this effect was sent by the then Naib Tehsildar, Sub Tehsil Baldwara to Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Sarkaghat. It is further mentioned in his reply that the land which is proposed to be transferred to the School is adjoining the School, over which the School is situated and can be best utilized for the School. It is also mentioned in the reply that after the permission of exchange of land was accorded by the competent authority, mutation also stands attested in favour of the private respondent on 15.12.2016 (Annexure R-7/8). It is further mentioned in the reply that whereas the land which now has been granted to the said respondent by way of exchange belonging to Government is worth Rs. 48,841/-, the value of the land of the private respondent, which stands transferred to the State, is more than Rs. 10,00,000/-. It is further stated in the reply that the Petitioner has filed the writ Petition with the intent to create hurdles in the smooth exchange of land. 5. In our considered view, there appears to be merit in the contention of the private respondent that this Petition has been filed by the Petitioner just to harass respondent No. 7. 10,00,000/-. It is further stated in the reply that the Petitioner has filed the writ Petition with the intent to create hurdles in the smooth exchange of land. 5. In our considered view, there appears to be merit in the contention of the private respondent that this Petition has been filed by the Petitioner just to harass respondent No. 7. Though as per the Petitioner, he has been authorized by the School Management Committee to pursue the matter in this regard, however, the Petition has not been filed in the name of the School Management Committee and the Petitioner has filed this Petition in his own name and in his individual capacity. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the Petitioner could not satisfy us that the land which now stands transferred to respondent No. 7 is more valuable than the land of respondent No. 7, which now stands transferred in the name of the School. He also could not deny the fact that the land of respondent No. 7 which now stands transferred in the name of School, is abutting the land of the School and can be better utilized for the School for its activities. In the present case, keeping in view the fact that respondent No. 7 had constructed a house over the land which belonged to the School and that he was willing to give his own land to the School in lieu of his having occupied the land of the School, the competent authority approved the exchange of land. Learned counsel for the Petitioner was not able to demonstrate that exchange of land so permitted vide Annexure P-8, was either without authority or was an act of colourable exercise of powers. Further, in our considered view, what the authority has done vide Annexure P-8 is an equitable act keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. During the course of arguments, learned Advocate General has apprised the Court that exchange of the land has been permitted taking into consideration the best interest of the School and after the authority satisfied itself that the land being offered by way of exchange by respondent No. 7 to the School was not only abutting the land of the School but was such as could be best utilized for the School. 6. 6. In view of the above discussion, as we do not find any merit in the writ Petition, the same is dismissed, so also miscellaneous applications, if any. No order as to costs.