Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Sandeep Sethi vs State Of H.P. &Amp Ors. on 1 July, 2014
85 ITEM NO.28 COURT NO.9 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 13018/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10/03/2014
in CWP 1159/2014, passed by the High Court Of H.P at Shimla)
SANDEEP SETHI Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF H.P. & ORS. Respondents(s)
(With appln. for with appln. (s) for seeking permission to submit
additional fact, documents and grounds and prayer for interim
relief)
Date : 01/07/2014 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V GOPALA GOWDA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. U.U. Lalit, Sr.Adv.
Mr. Sidharth Bhatnagar, Adv.
Ms. Pragya Baghel , Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Heard Mr. Uday U. Lalit learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner.
The respondent No.2 District Collector, Shimala, Himachal Pradesh issued a show cause notice purportedly under Section 118(1) of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 and the relevant part of the notice to show cause reads as follows: Signature Not Verified
"AND WHEREAS, Major Gen.Sardar Singh was handling above Digitally signed by Usha Rani Bhardwaj Date: 2014.07.05 12:15:59 IST land and building on the basis of agreement of General Reason: Power of Attorney till November, 2005. He never become the owner of the above land and buildings despite being a compromise decree passed by the District Judge on ...2/-:2:
24-02-1997. So such dealing of property on the basis of agreement General Power of Attorney followed by compromise decdree was in contravention of Section 118(1) of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, he had sold the above land and building to Shri Ashwani Kumar and his son namely Shri Siddhartha by way of sale deed No.924/2005, 934/2005 and 1023/2005.
NOW. THEREFORE, you are hereby called upon to show cause on 31-12-2013 at 2-00 P.M. by personally or through your authorised representatives as to why the aforesaid (illegible) together with built up structure, if any, should not be vested free from encumbrance in the State of Himachal Pradesh (except 400 sq. yards as mentioned in the General Power of Attorney dated 31-1-1996 executed by Maharani Kam Sundari in favour of Major Jagjit Singh and land and 0-1 bishwas land compromised in old Khasra No.19/1), failing which further action shall be taken in accordance with law. Given under my hand and seal of the Court on this 29 th day of November 2013 at Shimla."
After receipt of the show cause notice the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, High Court of judicature at Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in CWP No.1159/2014 and the writ court declined to interfere on the ground that the controversy was premature and the petitioner should file a reply to the show cause notice before the concerned authority.
It is submitted by Mr. Lalit that the District Collector has no jurisdiction to issue the notice in the nature that has been issued inasmuch as certain jurisdictional facts have not been taken into consideration. It is urged by him that unless the inherent and essential jurisdictional facts are stated the exercise of power under Section 118 of the Act is impermissible. The learned senior counsel would further submit that he has ...3/-
:3:
obtained a necessary certificate dated 29.02.2008 fro
m the
competent authority which reads as follows:
"It is certified that Sh. Ashok Sethi (Father of Sandeep Sethi) S/o Shri Amolak Ram Resident of Village Dehunghat, Land in mauja Dehun PO: Saproon Tehsil:
Solan District Solan (H.P.) is owner/kabij of 167 sq. mets Gair Majura of Land."
Hence Applicant comes under definition of Agriculturist." We have only noted the aforesaid submissions as they relate to legal propositions that if in actuality the petitioner is an agriculturist he would not be covered under Section 118 of the Act. When the reply will be filed before the Col lector concerned he shall afford an adequate opportunity to the petitioner who shall thereafter advert to the jurisdicti onal facts and other aspects to deal with the controversy in accordance with law. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to raise all contentions and also rely upon the relevant decisions, if so advised. It is needless to emphasise that the adjudica ting authority shall not be influenced by anything stated by the High Court or not draw anything adverse from the fact that we have not quashed the show cause. The show cause/reply shall be filed before the concerned authority within a period of six weeks from today, and thereafter the said authority shall proceed keeping in view the observations made hereinabove.
With the aforesaid observations the special leave petition stands disposed of.
(USHA BHARDWAJ) (RENUKA SADANA) AR-cum-PS COURT MASTER