Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ram Lal Sharma & Another vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 20 August, 2019
Bench: V .Ramasubramanian, Anoop Chitkara
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
CWP No. 1818 of 2019
Date of Decision : August 20 , 2019
Ram Lal Sharma & another ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ...Respondents
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Ramasubramanian, Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner : Mr. I.D. Bali Senior Advocate, with Mr.
Virender Bali, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General with
M/s Ritta Goswami, Adarsh Sharma,
Ashwani K. Sharma & Nand Lal Thakur,
Additional Advocate Generals, for
respondents No. 1 & 2.
V. Ramasubramanian , Chief Justice. (Oral)
Claiming to be social workers espousing the cause of protection of cows, the petitioners have come up with the above public interest litigation, challenging the mutation effected in the revenue records, in favour of two persons whose heirs are impleaded as respondents No. 5 to 10.
1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:19:52 :::HCHP 22. Heard Mr. I.D. Bali, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners.
.
3. According to the petitioners, the land to an extent of 16.10 bighas in Khasra No. 98, Khewat No. 191/01/151/M, Khatauni No. 208/01, was originally registered in the name of a Cow Protection Society, by name, Gau Rakshak Sabha Arki and that the mutation was wrongly effected, in the year 1980, in favour of one Mirli son of Meer Baksh. Claiming that the mutation effected in favour of the said person was wrong, the petitioners made several representations to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Principle Secretary of the Government, apart from the representations to the Hon'ble Governor of the State.
Thereafter, they have come up with the above public interest litigation.
4. Even according to the representations made by the petitioners, it is admitted that by the proceedings dated 28.07.1980, a mutation was effected in favour of the aforesaid person, by name, Mirli son of Meer Baksh. It appears that the Gau Rakshak Sabha whose cause is now sought to be espoused by the petitioners herein, took up ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:19:52 :::HCHP 3 the matter before the Revenue Authorities. The Sabha itself seems to have filed an appeal and succeeded before the .
Collector, who by an order dated 30.3.1981, remanded the matter back to the Revenue Officer. In the second round of litigation a decision was made in favour of the Gau Rakshak Sabha on 8.11.1985. But the said decision was appealed by two persons, by name, Illahi Baksh and Shabrati to the Assistant Collector, Grade-II, Arki. He allowed the appeal by an order dated 12.5.1986, setting aside the order of the Revenue Officer, dated 8.11.1985.
5. Thereafter, both the parties namely Illahi Baksh & another, as well as the Gau Rakshak Sabha were heard on several dates and the matter was finally decided by the Revenue Authority, by an order dated 7.11.1986. This order attained finality and the Gau Rakshak Sabha itself did not take up the matter any further.
6. Therefore, it is clear that the persons whose cause the petitioners are attempting to espouse in the above writ petition, have themselves given up their claim at least 33 years ago. We do not know how the petitioners, by way of a ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:19:52 :::HCHP 4 public interest litigation, can take up the cause of the Society, which has given up its fight at least 33 years ago.
.
7. Though the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contends that after repeated representations the Government itself had started an inquiry, we do not think that this Court can put a seal of approval on such a course of action. Stale and dead causes of action cannot be revived by repeated representations. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits. Hence, it is dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(V. Ramasubramanian), Chief Justice.
(Anoop Chitkara), Judge.
August 20 , 2019 (PK)
::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 02:19:52 :::HCHP