Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 809 (HP)

Fateh Singh v. State Of H. P.

2019-06-28

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2019
JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The instant petition, is, directed against the orders borne in Annexure P-9, wherethrough, the Divisional Commissioner Mandi Division, Mandi, H.P., while exercising powers, under, Section 54 of the H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), hence proceeded to set aside the orders recorded, upon, case No. 11/2004, on 15.2.2005, orders whereof stood rendered by the Consolidation Officer, Hamirpur, (a) and, also set aside, the orders recorded, upon, case No. 8/2005, and, as stood, rendered on 4.8.2006, by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Hamirpur, (b) besides, also proceeded to set aside the orders recorded, on 3.11.2010, upon, case No. 22/18/2010, by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, (c) and, thereafter proceeded, to affirm the orders recorded, on 10.10.2001, upon, case No. 6/2001, by the Consolidation Officer, Bilaspur. 2. The fulcrum of the entire controversy, rests, whether the consolidation scheme, embodied in Annexure P-1, holding concurrence, with, the salutary purpose, behind the afore enactment. The salutary and holistic purpose, embodied in the Act, for, the officer concerned rather validly affirming or dis-affirming, the consolidation scheme, is, hinged, upon, (a) whether the scheme, ensures qua the smaller fragmented tracts of lands, of ,the landowners concerned, are joined, and, consolidated hence with their major portion or larger chunks of lands. (b) Reiteratedly, the afore holistic, and, salutary purpose, is, for, avoiding, any hardship, being encumbered, upon, the landowners concerned, to, traverse through the lands of the other landowners concerned, for, cultivating their disjoined lands, vis-a-vis, their major portion, as may happen, upon, their smaller chunks of land, standing, located far away, from, their larger pieces of land or larger tracts of lands, and, when hence obviable litigations rather may be sparked, (c) and, thereupon, the smaller chunks of lands, are enjoined to be consolidated, or joined with the larger chunks, of lands, of, the landowners concerned. Consequently, if the afore salutary, and, holistic purpose behind the Act, is not achieved, and, rather stands defeated hence by the drawing, of, the consolidation scheme, (d) thereupon, the statutory order, hence accepting the consolidation scheme, and, consequent therewith alterations, in the requisite jamabandis, and, tatimas, would also come to be frowned, upon, courts of law. 3. Consequently, if the afore salutary, and, holistic purpose behind the Act, is not achieved, and, rather stands defeated hence by the drawing, of, the consolidation scheme, (d) thereupon, the statutory order, hence accepting the consolidation scheme, and, consequent therewith alterations, in the requisite jamabandis, and, tatimas, would also come to be frowned, upon, courts of law. 3. Upon, the afore anvil, it is to be tested whether the consolidation scheme, borne in Annexure P-1, and, which find references, in the order borne, in Annexure P-9, rather satiating or nullifying, the afore holistic purpose, behind the Act concerned. For facilitating, the afore determination, it is also apt to refer, to the emphatic portion of the order, borne in Annexure P-9, portion whereof stands extracted hereinafter:- "......The petitioner was originally rightly allotted the land out of Khasra No.1239 (old) and Khasra No.1015 (new) measuring 0-10-0 bighas of value 8 Ans instead of Khasra No. 1467/1079 (old) measuring 0-07-0 bighas of value 12 Ans, during the consolidation proceeding keeping in view of the classification of land, cost thereof, the land being in possession of the petitioner from the very beginning i.e. since 1983 and the orchard of the petitioner is existing on the said land and the provision of Consolidation Scheme as per para 5 and 11 which shows that the house and orchard will not be included in major portion of land in the Revenue Estate and if any person has constructed any house or planted orchard on the land, whether by consent or under mistake then the land covered by orchard or house will be entered in the name of the person in possession of the land. The Consolidation Officer, Bilaspur has rightly rejected the objection of present respondents vide his order dated 10.10.2001 passed in Case No.6/2001. The consolidation Officer, Hamirpur vide his order dated 15.2.2005 in case No. 11/2004 and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Hamirpur vide his order dated 4.8.2006 in case No.8/2005 and Deputy Commissioner, Mandi vide his order dated 3.11.2010 in case No. 22/18/2010 have wrongly dismissed the petition of the present petitioner which is against the Consolidation Scheme." A mere perusal of the afore apt portion, of, the consolidation scheme, finding echoing in Annexure P-9, does make, clear bespeaking, qua the Consolidation Scheme, borne in Annexure P-1, excluding the house, and, the orchard concerned, from the major portion of the land of the landowners concerned. (a) AND also it makes echoing, qua, even if, the afore house or orchard is raised with or without consent of the other landowners concerned, rather enjoining qua in consonance with Annexure P-1, it being entered in possession of the landowner(s) concerned, (b) obviously, the petitioner, in the afore order, stands, arrayed as respondent No.7, in the extant writ petition, has derived benefits, of the afore conclusion, and, the impugned order, has affirmed the consolidation scheme, borne in Annexure P-1. However, for the reasons, to be assigned hereinafter, the acceptance of the afore consolidation scheme, borne in Annexure P-1, is thoroughly seeped in gross stains, of its, working against the afore enunciated holistic spirit, and, salutary purpose(s) behind the Act, (c) inasmuch, as the determinations, of, the major portion by the Consolidation Officer concerned, and, finding reference in the consolidation scheme, embodied in Annexure P-1, is to be made, rather solitarily on the basis of a valid title, hence, vesting in the landowners concerned, (d) obviously it is not to be made, merely, on the strength of possession, if any, of the landowners concerned, of the any tract of land, in respect whereof, proceedings are launched under the Act, (e) since the consolidation scheme borne in Annexure P-1, and, affirmed in Annexure P-9, does not, make any visible echoing qua the land, and, orchard of respondent No.7 herein, in respect whereof he held possession, also being recorded, in his valid ownership, (f) thereupon, for want of the afore echoings in Annexure P-9 or in Annexure P- 1, the non inclusion of the orchard, and, the land of the petitioners, from his major portion, and, wherewith he may be holding a valid title, or may not be holding any valid title, renders the exclusion, of, the afore possession(s) of respondent No.7, qua, his land mentioned in paragraphs No. 5 and 7, of the consolidation scheme, borne in Annexure P-1, to rather benumb or defeat, the afore salutary mission, behind the Act, and also, appears to bestow an unjust benefit, upon, respondent No.7. 4. XXX XXX XXX 5. XXX XXX XXX 6. For the foregoing reasons, the instant writ petition is allowed, and, orders impugned before this Court, and, borne in Annexure P-9 are set aside. All pending applications also stand disposed of.