Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 981 (HP)

Tarlok Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2018-05-24

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2018
JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. 1. Petitioner herein is aggrieved by the order Annexure P-2 passed by learned Additional District Magistrate-cum-Commissioner, under H.P. Common Land Vesting and Utilization Scheme, Kangra at Dharamshala whereby the report Annexure P-2 submitted by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Jaisinghpur, District Kangra to Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala has been quashed and set aside. 2. The subject matter of dispute is the plots i.e. plot No. 597 measuring 0-31-44 Hects. allotted to Smt. Devku Devi, the predecessor-in-interest of respondent No. 3, plot No. 547 measuring 0-24-50 Hects. allotted to deceased respondent No. 2 Maghu Ram, plot No. 564 measuring 0-29-84 Hects. allotted to one Lal Chand, the predecessor-in-interest of respondent No. 4, plot No. 565 measuring 0-29-43 Hects allotted to respondent No. 6 Hari Singh and plot No. 1065/562 measuring 0-11-70 Hects. allotted to respondent No. 6 Smt. Darmo Devi. The petitioner herein being against such allotment for the reasons best known to him accompanied by other villagers has made complaint against allotment of the plots hereinabove. 3. The report of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Jaisinghpur District Kangra was sought in the matter by the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala. The report is Annexure P-1. The Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) has recommended the cancellation of the plots so allotted to the respondents herein on the grounds, such as, the possession of the land is not resumed by the allottees, the allottees were not eligible under the Scheme, the plots are situated adjoining to the road, hence its costs increasing day by day, the same was being used by the children as play grounds, there is growth of Bamboos and Mangoes trees on the land so allotted etc. etc. The report was considered by the authorised officer i.e. Additional District Magistrate-cum-Commissioner under the H.P. Common Land Vesting & Utilization Scheme, Kangra at Dharamshala. The authorised officer while disagreeing with the report has quashed and set aside the same on the grounds, inter-alia, that the plots were allotted to the respondents after due inquiry conducted under the Scheme. Also that it is the objectors including the petitioner who not only are interfering in the possession of the allottees-respondents but also damaging the standing crops therein vide order Annexure P-2. 4. Also that it is the objectors including the petitioner who not only are interfering in the possession of the allottees-respondents but also damaging the standing crops therein vide order Annexure P-2. 4. The impugned order cannot be said to be legally and factually unsustainable in any manner whatsoever for the reasons that when the allotment was made by the competent authority after conducing inquiry under the Scheme the objectors including the petitioner are not justified in raising the objection that the allotment is contrary to the Scheme or that the land being valuable could have not been allotted etc. etc. The allegations that the same could have been put to best use of it are also without any substance for the reasons that the allotment made under the Scheme could have not been cancelled on the basis thereof. 5. One of the allottees Maghu Ram deceased respondent No. 2 had filed a suit against the objectors including Shakuntla Devi, the wife of the present petitioner for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining them from causing any interference over the plot allotted to him. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palampur after holding full trial and arriving at a conclusion that the defendants in that suit including the wife of petitioner were causing interference over the plot allotted to deceased Maghu Ram had decreed the suit vide judgment dated 12.1.2010, Annexure R-2/1 to the reply filed on behalf of said Shri Maghu Ram. In another suit preferred by Rattani Devi, the mother of Lal Chand respondent No. 4 similar relief was granted against the defendants including Smt. Shakuntla Devi, the wife of petitioner. The copy of the judgment and decree passed in that suit is Annexure R-1 to the reply filed by Maghu Ram in the application registered as CMP No. 13846 of 2011 filed along with the writ petition for grant of interim relief. 6. Such declaration by the Civil Court in favour of the respondents-allottees leads to the only conclusion that the petitioner and other villagers are objecting to the allotment due to enmity, jealousy and may be due to other reasons also best known to them. Learned Authorised Officer, therefore, has rightly quashed the cancellation report Annexure P-1 to the writ petition. The impugned order, as such, calls for no interference. The same is affirmed and the writ petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. 7. Learned Authorised Officer, therefore, has rightly quashed the cancellation report Annexure P-1 to the writ petition. The impugned order, as such, calls for no interference. The same is affirmed and the writ petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. 7. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand dismissed.