Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 167 (HP)

Khushal Chand v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2019-02-05

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) - By way of these petitions, petitioners in both the petitions have mainly prayed for the following common reliefs: "(I) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued thereby directing the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh to consider/decide the application of the petitioner for regularisation of Patta Nautor. (II) That the respondents may be directed not to take any coercive action/eviction proceedings against the petitioner till the final disposal of application for regularisation." 2. Mr. Maan Singh, learned counsel representing the petitioners, in both the petitions, while placing on record copy of judgment dated 10.1.2019 passed by the Principal Division Bench of this court in CWP No. 1098 of 2018 a/w CWP Nos. 1361 and 1360 of 2018, states that the cases at hand are squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment, as such, similar reliefs may also be granted in favour of the petitioners, who are similarly situate as that of the petitioners in the aforesaid petitions. 3. Mr. Dinesh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, having carefully perused the judgment dated 10.1.2019 passed by the Principal Division Bench of this court, fairly admits that the cases are hand can be ordered to be disposed of in light of aforesaid judgment rendered by the Principal Division Bench of this court. 4. In nutshell, the case of the petitioner in CWP No. 269 of 2019 is that the land described in para-3 of the petition, was granted as a Patta Nautor in favour of his mother, Smt. Leela Devi, vide Patta No. 288/2, dated 3.6.1972, by Raja Mahender Singh and since then, she is in possession of the same and she has raised fruit orchards i.e. apple, pear and plum over the said land besides packaging sheds/cow sheds. 5. Similarly, in CWP No. 270 of 2019, case of the petitioner is that Patta Nautor was granted in favour of his father on 2.12.1972 vide Patta No. 155 by Raja Mahender Singh of the land described in para-3 of the petition, on which also, orchards of apple and plum have been raised besides packaging sheds and a septic tank. 6. Similarly, in CWP No. 270 of 2019, case of the petitioner is that Patta Nautor was granted in favour of his father on 2.12.1972 vide Patta No. 155 by Raja Mahender Singh of the land described in para-3 of the petition, on which also, orchards of apple and plum have been raised besides packaging sheds and a septic tank. 6. In both the cases, petitioners have moved applications on 22.11.2018 to the Deputy Commissioner, praying therein for regularisation of Patta Nautor, who subsequently has marked the applications on 30.11.2018 to the Sub Divisional Officer(Civil), Kullu, who in turn has marked the same to the Tehsildar Bhunter on 13.12.2018, but till date no action has been taken on the same. 7. It is apparent from the aforesaid facts as well as material available on record that the applications having been filed by the petitioners in both the cases are still pending consideration and as such, these petitions can be ordered to be disposed of with a direction to the Sub Divisional Officer(Civil) Kullu and Deputy Commissioner, Kullu, to decide the applications, if any, filed on behalf of the petitioners in these petitions, in accordance with law and Scheme, if any, formulated by the Government, preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. 8. Careful perusal of judgment dated 10.1.2019 passed by the Principal Division Bench clearly shows that in similar facts, direction proposed to be passed by this court in the instant proceedings, has already been passed, as such, this court hopes and trusts that the authority concerned shall take action in terms of judgment passed in the instant cases as well as judgment dated 10.1.2019, with utmost promptitude. 9. Needles to say, opportunity of hearing shall be afforded to the petitioners in both the cases and speaking order(s) shall be passed by the authority concerned. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to approach this court, in case of any surviving grievance. Till the time, decisions are taken on the applications filed by the petitioners, parties are directed to maintain status quo qua nature and possession of the land in dispute in both the petitions (as described in para- 3 of both the petitions). Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Copy dasti.