Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1918 (HP)

Y. p. Verma v. State Of H P

2019-12-16

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2019
JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The petitioner herein, filed a complaint before the learned Collector concerned, alleging therein, vis-a-vis, the mandatory statutory provisions, as, borne, in, Section 118, of, the, Himachal Pradesh Tenancy, and, Land Reforms Act, becoming, rather breached, by, the, respondents concerned. Upon, the, complaint made, by, the, petitioner herein, a, case, bearing No. 13 of 1995, became registered, and, thereon, hence, an order, become rendered, on, 3.7.1996, by, the learned Collector concerned, (I) wherethrough, the Collector concerned, recorded findings, vis-a-vis, the complained sale transaction concerned, becoming executed, in, breach, of, the, provisions, of, Section 118, of, the, H.P. Tenancy, and, Land Reforms Act, (ii) and, also ordered qua, the, complained property, becoming, confiscated, to, the, State, of, H.P. However, during, the, pendency, of, the afore case, an, order, was, made, on, 22.06.1997, upon, the, petitioner''s application, cast, before, the, Collector concerned, under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC, (iii) wherethrough, though, he strived, for, his becoming arrayed, in, the complaint or in, the, afore lis, as, complainant/respondent. However, thereon on 22.6.1997, the learned Collector concerned, did not, grant the afore prayer, vis-a-vis, the petitioner herein, and, only permitted him, and, also one Arjun Dass, to, testify, as, state witnesses, and, also permitted both, to, tender oral, and, documentary evidence, and, their counsel, one Shashi Pandit, Advocate, become also permitted, to, assist the Public Prosecutor concerned. The learned counsel appearing, for, the, petitioner herein, submits, that, the, afore order has become completely complied with, and, the, afore case, has, terminated, through, an, order made, on, 3.7.1996. 2. The learned counsel appearing, for, the, petitioner herein, submits, that, the, afore order has become completely complied with, and, the, afore case, has, terminated, through, an, order made, on, 3.7.1996. 2. The order made on 22.6.1997, does fall, within the permissible limits, of, Section 118 (3) (b), of, the, H.P. Tenancy,a nd, Land Reforms Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- "(b) a Revenue officer either on an application made to him or on receipt of any information from any source, comes to know or has reason to believe that any land has been transferred or is being transferred in contravention of the provisions of sub-section(1); such Sub-Registrar, the Registrar or the Revenue Officer, as the case may be, shall make reference to the Collector of the District, in which land or any part thereof is situate, and the Collector, on receipt of such reference, or where the Revenue Officer happens to be the Collector of the District himself, he either on an application made to him or on receipt of any information from any source, comes to know or has reason to believe that any land has been transferred or is being transferred in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1), shall after affording to the persons who are parties to the transfer, a reasonable opportunity of being heard and holding an enquiry, determine whether the transfer of land is or is not in contravention of sub-section (1) and he shall, within 90 days from the date of receipt of reference made to him or such longer period as the Divisional Commissioner may allow for reasons to be recorded in writing, record his decision thereon and intimate the findings to the Registrar, Sub-Registrar or the Revenue Officer concerned." (a) wherein only, an opportunity becoming granted, by, the authority concerned, to, the apposite executants, vis-a-vis, complained sale transaction concerned, becomes encapsulated therein, (b) apparently the complainants'', hence, the, afore strived opportunity, to, hence seek his impleadment, in, the array, of, the, respondents, rather, remains, unencapsulated therein. Even though, the, mandate, of, the, afore statutory provisions, does cast, a, strict embargo, against, the, participation, of, the, complainant, in, the, proceedings embarked, upon, by, the, Collector concerned, and, as, become, drawn, under, Section 118, of, the, H.P. Tenancy, and, Land Reforms Act, (c) nonetheless, the afore proceedings are quasi criminal in nature, hence, it appears, that, the, order made, on, 22.06.1997, during, the, pendency, of, the, complaint, does, also fall, within, the, expostulation, of, law, encapsulated, in, paragraph No.32, of, a, verdict, rendered, by, the, Hon''ble Apex Court, in, a, case titled, as, Sundeep Kumar Bafna vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2014) 16 SCC 623 , the relevant paragraph No.32 whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- "32. The upshot of this analysis is that no vested right is granted to a complainant or informant or aggrieved party to directly conduct a prosecution. So far as the Magistrate is concerned, comparative latitude is given to him but he must always bear in mind that while the prosecution must remain being robust and comprehensive and effective it should not abandon the need to be free, fair and diligent. So far as the Sessions Court is concerned, it is the Public Prosecutor who must at all times remain in control of the prosecution and a counsel of a private party can only assist the Public Prosecutor in discharging its responsibility. The complainant or informant or aggrieved party may, however, be heard at a crucial and critical juncture of the Trial so that his interests in the prosecution are not prejudiced or jeopardized. It seems to us that constant or even frequent interference in the prosecution should not be encouraged as it will have a deleterious impact on its impartiality. If the Magistrate or Sessions Judge harbours the opinion that the prosecution is likely to fail, prudence would prompt that the complainant or informant or aggrieved party be given an informal hearing. Reverting to the case in hand, we are of the opinion that the complainant or informant or aggrieved party who is himself an accomplished criminal lawyer and who has been represented before us by the erudite Senior Counsel, was not possessed of any vested right of being heard as it is manifestly evident that the Court has not formed any opinion adverse to the prosecution. Whether the Accused is to be granted bail is a matter which can adequately be argued by the State Counsel. We have, however, granted a full hearing to Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Senior Advocate and have perused detailed Written Submissions since we are alive to impact that our opinion would have on a multitude of criminal trials." (a) wherein, the Hon''ble Apex Court, has, permitted, the complainant or the informant or the aggrieved, for, theirs validly seeking an opportunity, of, being heard, and, also it becomes echoed therein qua the afore strivings, becoming granted, rather, at, a, crucial, and, critical juncture, of, the trial, hence, rather for ensuring qua the interest, of, the, afore are not prejudiced, or jeopardized. Furthermore, it has also become expounded therein, that, upon, the authorities concerned, during, the, course, of, hearing, noticing, upon, theirs making, an, objective appraisal, of, the, proceedings, as, occur before him/them, qua, hence, the prosecution becoming likely to fail, unless, an opportunity becoming afforded, to, the, aggrieved, (b) thereupon, it being permissible, for the authority concerned, to, permit, the, aggrieved, to, make a formal address before him/it. Since, as, aforestated, the order made, upon, the afore application, is strictly within the ambit of paragraph No.32, of, the, verdict, of, the Hon''ble Apex Court, rendered, in, Sundeep Kumar Bafna''s case (supra), and, also when hence, thereafter, when the order pronounced, on, 3.7.1996 became assailed, through, the, aggrieved therefrom, rather preferring thereagainst appeals respectively bearing Revenue Appeal No. 95, of, 1996, and, Revenue Appeal no. 96, of, 1996, rather, before, the, learned Divisional Commissioner concerned, (c) and, when upon, the afore Revenue Appeal(s), the Divisional Commissioner concerned, after allowing the afore appeals, as, became preferred before him, remanded, the lis for fresh disposal in accordance with law, (d) and, thereafter the remandee judicial authority concerned, upon, the remanded lis assigned thereto, Case No. 37 of 2013, of, 1996, and, Case No. 35/13, of, 1996, (e) and, when earlier during, the, pendency, of, remanded lis, an, application hence became instituted, by, the, petitioner herein, seeking his impleadment, as, a party litigant, in the afore lis, (f) and, with the aforesaid application becoming partly allowed, rather with the afore permission, to, the petitioner hence becoming granted, (g) and, whereupon, the applicant, was, permitted, to, participate, in, the, proceedings, drawn, on remand, and, after completion, of, the requisite proceedings, and, after recording, all the adduced evidence, the, remandee quasi judicial authority, made, an, order on 20.02.1999, with, findings, thereon, qua, the respondents No.2 to 5, breaching, the, mandate of Section 118, of, the, H.P. Tenancy, and, Land Reforms Act. (h) AND whereafter the aforesaid order, of, 22.02.1999 became challenged, before, the, Divisional Commissioner concerned, by, the aggrieved thereagainst, hence, preferring revenue appeal bearing No.82 of 1999, and, Revenue appeal No. 83 of 1999, before, the, Appellate Authority. (i) Besides, with, the Divisional Commissioner concerned, on becoming seized, with, the afore appeals, hence, making an order, of, remand, on, 16.02.2000, and, the afore order of remand, as, made, by, the, Divisional Commissioner concerned, thereafter became challenged, before, the, Financial Commissioner concerned, by, the, aggrieved petitioner, by, preferring Revision Petitions. (j) Nonetheless, with, the, afore Revision petition, standing, dismissed, by, the, Financial Commissioner, on, 29.10.2015, and, hence, wherethrough, the, order, of, remand became upheld, and, whereafter the Remandee Court, on, 20.04.2009, again, concluded, qua, the, sale transactions concerned, breaching, the, mandate, of, Section 118, of, the, H.P. Tenancy, and, Land Reforms Act, and, also thereafter, made an, order, for, confiscation, of, the, property embodied, in, the, sale deeds concerned. 3. 3. However, and, bee that as it may, against, the, order made, on, 20.4.2009, by, the, Collector concerned, the, aggrieved therefrom respondents concerned, yet, constituted, an, appeal, before, the, Divisional Commissioner concerned, appeal whereof, became, assigned Appeal No. 77 of 2009, (i) wherein, the petitioner herein, made agitations therebefore, vis-a-vis, the, necessity, of his becoming impleaded, as, a, party, in the apposite lis, through, his constituting an application therebefore, (ii) and, upon, the afore application, an, order qua its, dismissal became rendered, on, 17.12.2015, and, hence led, the, petitioner herein, to, challenge, the, afore order, before, the, Financial Commissioner concerned, by, his constituting, a, Revision Petition bearing No.3 of 2016, whereon, the Financial Commissioner concerned, did, also made, an, order in affirmation, to, the, order earlier made, by, the, learned Divisional Commissioner concerned, (iii) thereupon, the, petitioner, has, again become aggrieved therefrom, and, hence has instituted, the, extant petition before this Court. 4. As afore stated, since, the, conclusive order made, on, 22.6.1997, has become completely complied with, and, also when it, is, squarely, falling within, the, ambit, of, law, declared, by, the, Hon''ble Apex Court, in, Sundeep Kumar Bafna''s case (supra), (a) and, hence, thereupon, the, declining(s), vis-a-vis, the petitioner herein, of, the, apposite, espoused permission, for, his impleadment, in, the, apposite lis, earlier by the Divisional Commissioner concerned, and, latter by the Financial Commissioner concerned, hence does not suffer, from, any perversity or absurdity, whereupon, this Court, is constrained, to, uphold, the, orders, as, impugned before this Court. 5. In view of the above, there is no merit in the instant petition, and, it is dismissed accordingly. The impugned order is maintained and affirmed. However, in view of the verdict of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Sundeep Kumar Bafna''s case (supra), liberty, is, reserved, to, the petitioner herein, through, his validly engaged counsel, to assist the Public Prosecutor concerned. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.