Himachal Pradesh High Court
Hem Raj vs Partap Chand And Another on 16 June, 2016
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No. 170 of 2014.
Date of decision: 16.6.2016.
.
Hem Raj Petitioner
Versus
Partap Chand and another Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Sureshwar Thakur, J.
of
Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner: rt Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate, with
Mr. Basant Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. K.D.Sood, Sr. Advocate, with
Mr. Ankit Aggarwal, Advocate.
Sureshwar Thakur, J. (oral)
The parties at contest wrangle qua the factum of location of the disputed "Chiuli" tree inasmuch as it standing located upon the land of the one or the other. A perusal of the record of the Panchayat concerned unravels the factum of a decision standing recorded by it on 20.3.2008, on its standing seized with the relevant demarcation report with a portrayal therein of a disputed "Amrao" tree standing located on the land of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:36:17 :::HCHP 2 Partap Chand. However, the decision of the Panchayat concerned recorded on 20.03.2008 stood assailed by Hem Raj by his preferring an .
appeal therefrom before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Hamirpur. The learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Hamirpur, under Annexure P-2 by of his setting aside the order of the Panchayat concerned recorded on 20.03.2008 hence rt accepted the appeal preferred thereat by the aggrieved Hem Raj. Also under annexure P-2, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Hamirpur remanded the matter to the Gram Panchayat concerned to decide the matter afresh without its being influenced by its earlier decision recorded on 20.3.2008. In sequel, the Panchayat concerned proceeded to record a decision on 20.1.2011 under Annexure P-4. In an appeal preferred therefrom the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Hamirpur, affirmed the decision recorded by the Panchayat concerned. An apparent display occurs ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:36:17 :::HCHP 3 in the afore referred verdicts of the Panchayat concerned besides of the Civil Judge, Hamirpur, of the parties at contest hereat litigating qua the .
location of an "Amrao" tree upon the land of the one or the other. However, the aforesaid contentious location of the "Amrao" tree was the of subject matter of a lis interse Partap Chand and Surender Nath. Moreover, as displayed by rt Annexure P-1 the petitioner herein had rather instituted a complaint before the Panchayat concerned qua the respondent herein illicitly felling a "Chiuli" tree which stood located upon his land. Despite the Panchayat concerned standing seized with the aforesaid complaint instituted by the petitioner herein qua the respondents herein felling a "Chiuli" tree purportedly located on the formers land, it omitted to initiate appropriate proceedings thereupon. Obviously also no adjudication on Annexure P-1 stood rendered by the Panchayat concerned. The relief as asked for ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:36:17 :::HCHP 4 by the petitioner herein in the instant petition is of the Panchayat concerned being directed to initiate proceedings upon Annexure P-1 whereupon the .
Panchayat concerned remained oblivious.
Contrarily it proceeded to record a decision upon the disputed location of the contentious "Amrao"
of tree, disputed location whereof was the subject matter of litigation interse one Surender Nath and rt Partap Chand. Since Annexure P-1 is manifestive of the petitioner herein levelling allegations against Pratap Chand obviously when there is a stark distinctivity inter se the litigating parties in Annexure P-1 vis.a.vis. the litigating parties reflected in the memo of parties in the impugned annexures besides when in the impugned annexures there occurs a reflection of a tree distinct than the one manifested in Annexure P-1 standing subjected to adjudication, consequently, the Panchayat concerned besides the learned Civil Judge,(Jr. Division), Hamirpur, appear to have ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:36:17 :::HCHP 5 recorded decisions upon a subject matter distinct to the one portrayed in Annexure P-1 besides recorded a decision inter se parties reflected in the .
memo of parties of the Panchayat concerned besides reflected in the memo of parties of the pronouncement of the Civil Judge,(Jr.Division), of Hamirpur, reflections whereof therein are manifestly disconcurring viz.a.viz allegations rt constituted in Annexure P-1, annexure whereof unravels of litigants thereat being distinct vis.a.vis litigants hereat. Given the stark distinctivity aforesaid in the impugned order of the Panchayat concerned besides of the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Hamirpur, both hence suffer from gross non application of mind qua not only the subject matter whereupon they stood enjoined to render a pronouncement besides also qua the names of the litigating parties. As such, the impugned renditions are quashed and set-aside.
The Panchayat concerned is directed to decide ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:36:17 :::HCHP 6 afresh Annexure P-1 in accordance with law within three months after affording an opportunity to all aggrieved.
.
16th June, 2016 (Sureshwar Thakur)
™ Judge.
of
rt
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:36:17 :::HCHP