Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Thakur Dass vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 13 September, 2021
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, M.M. Sundresh
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5672 OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 24495/2018)
THAKUR DASS APPELLANT(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS. RESPONDENT(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The present dispute arising from the Himachal Pradesh (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 (for short, “the Act”) has a long and chequered history. In order to resolve the matter before us, suffice to refer to the order of the Divisional Commissioner (Annexure P-9) on an application filed by the appellants before us under Section 54 of the said Act.
It is the case of the appellants that the Land Consolidation Officer had changed the numbers of the Khasras in the consolidation proceedings. The prayer made by the appellant was that he should be given price of area at 2 annas or land under present Khasra No. 111 or Khasra No. 175 be Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Charanjeet kaur Date: 2021.09.15 returned to him. This application resulted in an 16:59:45 IST Reason: unfavourable order to the appellants dated 10.10.2017 which was assailed in a writ petition 2 before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh making the following dual prayers :
“(i) That the order dated 10.10.2017 passed by the Ld. Divisional Commissioner Mandi i.e. Annexure A-4 while exercising powers of State Government under Section 54 of the Himachal Pradesh holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971, whereby order of Consolidation Officer dated 20.07.1984 passed in Case No. 574/84 i.e. Annexure P-2 had been confirmed may kindly be quashed and set aside by issuance of writ of mandamus or any other writ or any other order in the interest of justice.
(ii) That in the alternative it is also prayed that in case the exchange is not cancelled then petitioner be ordered to be allotted Khasra No. 111 which adjoins to the land of petitioner viz Khasra No. 106,110 and from khasra No. 175, 14 Marlas is to be ordered to be given back to the petitioner” The writ petition was however, dismissed by the impugned order dated 10.04.2018.
In the special leave petition, notice was issued on 04.09.2018 with an interim direction to maintain status quo as on that date until further orders. The matter was heard at admission stage on 02.08.2019 when the following order was passed :
“On hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4, we consider it appropriate to direct the Tehsildar of the area in question to visit the land in question to verify the claim of the petitioner that despite the 3 consolidation proceedings, the petitioner has continued to cultivate Khasra No.111 and his possession has not been disturbed. His contention in fact is that it is this land which has been maintained in his possession in pursuance to the consolidation proceedings while in land revenue record Khasra No.117 has been shown to be alloted to him. It is submitted before us that the latter land is in a Khud and a part of it is actually a river bed. The revenue authorities would, thus, inspect both Khasra Nos.111 and 117 to give an appropriate report of the situation, location and nature of the site. The said exercise be done after giving the notice to both to the petitioner and respondent No.5.
xxxxxxx” In pursuance to the aforesaid, the Tehsildar had carried out the necessary exercise and filed the report before us. The report has been filed with a brief history of the case and after notice for presence at site issued to both the parties. It has been noticed that consolidation proceedings in Mohal Har Masanda was carried out during the year 1983-1984. During the consolidation process respondent No. 5, Sh. Kartar Chand filed an appeal under Section 30(1) of the said Act before the then land Consolidation Officer. In the proceedings, Khasra No.175 of the appellant Sh. Thakur Dass was exchanged with Khasra No. 117 of the respondent No. 5, Sh. Kartar Chand.
In the revenue record, Khasra No. 111 4 measuring OK-8M is recorded as “Khadaitar” and during the spot inspection it has been found that Khasra No. 111 looks like a sloping area from which grass can be easily harvested and this Khasra No. is situated on the slope adjacent to the river. It is recorded in the ownership of Sh. Kartar Chand, respondent No. 5. Khasra No. 117 measuring OK-11M is also recorded as “Khadaitar” in revenue record and on the spot, it looks like Bheth. This Khasra No. is also situated on the slope alongside river but this Khasra No. is unreachable and no person can harvest the grass from this site.
On the spot inspection, it was found that the appellant was actually in actual possession of Khasra No. 111. The statement of the parties and adjoining land holders has been attached with the report. It has been opined in terms of the value, nature of the land and produce etc., Khasra No. 117 does not seem equal in terms of exchange with Khasra No. 175, though Khasra No. 111 seems fit for exchange in terms of all values quoted above.
The claim of the appellant being in continued possession of Khasra No. 111 was found to be valid, including by the recent harvest and thus the claim of the appellant that he was shown Kharsa No. 111 but alloted Khasra No. 117 was also 5 found to be genuine.
In view of the aforesaid position and on hearing learned counsel for parties we consider appropriate to pass the following order :
i) the order of the Divisional Commissioner, dated 10.10.2017 and the impugned order of the High Court date 10.04.2018 are both set aside;
ii) the report placed before us of the Tehsildar be placed before the Divisional Commissioner;
iii) The Divisional Commissioner will take a fresh look in respect of the application filed by the appellant in Case No. 523/2009 filed on 26.11.2002 taking into consideration the report of the Tehsildar which would be before him for consideration after giving opportunity to the parties;
iv) In view of the long passage of time, the Divisional Commissioner would endevour to give quietus to the matter within a maximum period of three months from the date of taking up the matter,
v) In view of the report of the Tehsildar, the possession of the appellant in respect of Khasra No. 111 shall remain protected during such process of adjudication.
The appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms. 6 The parties to bear their own cost. A copy of the order be sent to the Divisional Commissioner.
....................J. [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL] ...................J. [M.M. SUNDRESH] NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 13, 2021.
7
ITEM NO.31 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) 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). 24495/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10-04-2018 in CWP No. 526/2018 passed by the High Court Of Himachal Pradesh At Shimla) THAKUR DASS Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS. Respondent(s) Date : 13-09-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH For Petitioner(s) Mr. Mudit Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Nandini Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv.
Mr. V.K. Shukla, Adv.
Mr. SPM Tripathi, Adv.
Mr. Dhruv Toliya, Adv.
Mr. Sugam Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Prithvijoy Das, Adv.
Ms. Arina Bhattacharya, Adv. Ms. Swagoti Batchas, Adv.
Ms. Beena, Adv.
Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
The parties to bear their own costs. A copy of the order be sent to the Divisional Commissioner.
[CHARANJEET KAUR] [POONAM VAID] ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH) [ Signed order is placed on the file ]