Himachal Pradesh High Court
Karam Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 3 August, 2016
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No: 1973 of 2008
Date of Decision: 03.08.2016
.
______________________________________________________________________
Karam Singh .....Petitioner.
Vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh and others .....Respondents.
Coram:
of
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the petitioner: Mr. Jagan Nath, Advocate, vice Mr.
rt Anand Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Ms. Parul Negi and Mr. Pankaj Negi, Dy.
A.Gs., for respondents No. 1 to 4.
Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr.
Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate, for respondents
5(a) to (e) and 6.
Ajay Mohan Goel, J. (Oral) :
This petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:
"(a) Passing directions to the respondents No. 1 to 4 not to cancel the Patta granted to the petitioner vide Patta (Annexure-P/1) and further directing the respondents No. 1 to 4 to attest the mutation in favour of the petitioner as per grant of Nautor vide patta dated 7/5/1999.
(b) Passing directions to respondents No. 1 to 4 that the right which has been granted by way of Patta may not be cancelled without confirming the principles of natural justice and fair play and directions may Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:57:22 :::HCHP 2
kindly be passed that the respondents may exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon them by adopting principles of natural justice.
(c) Proceedings initiated against the petitioner .
under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 may kindly be ordered to be quashed.
(d) Records of the case be summoned for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
(e) Any other writ, order or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper may kindly be of passed in the interest of justice.
(f) Cost of the petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents."
2. rt When this case was taken up for arguments today, it was pointed out by Mr. Jagan Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact 3 bighas 3 biswhas land was allotted to the petitioner by way of Nautor, but factually out of the said land, 15 biswas land is in possession of Shri Panchai Lal, respondent No. 6 and 2 biswas land is in possession of legal representatives of deceased Devi Singh, respondents No. 5(a) to 5(e). For this reason, the land is not being mutated in favour of the petitioner and this precisely is the grievance of the petitioner.
3. The attention of this Court has been drawn to a written statement filed on behalf of the State of Himachal Pradesh in Civil Suit No. 124 of 2005 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chamba, copy of which is appended with the petition as Annexure P/5, wherein it is mentioned as under:
"...................Thereafter, on the report of Field Kanungo (Report Annexed as R-1) Sh. Karam Singh ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:57:22 :::HCHP 3 plaintiff was called by the replying respondent NO. 3 on 22.09.2005 for statement (Statement annexed as R-2) as to why the adjoining land may not be allotted to him, so that the shortage of 17 Biswa of land be .
covered but the adamantly stated that the mutation only be attested of the land which has been allotted to him and is entered in the Form "B" which was basically not possible as the part of that land was already in the possession of Sh. Devi Singh and the mutation of the said land was already sanctioned in of his favour on 29.09.2003 and one Kuhal and Gharats were also exist on the suit land. Inspite of above statement plaintiff has also got his statement rt recorded before the reply respondent No. 4 on 27.05.2004 (statement annexed as R-3) that if the part of land allotted to him has already been sanctioned and mutated in the name of some one else then if feasible, the adjoining land may be given to him in lieu of such land. Hence the Revenue agency at any stage has not denied for the attestation of the mutation, but due to statutory provisions, the mutation could not attested as the part of allotted land was in the possession of the other person. Hence in view of the facts explained above, it is prayed that the plaint of the plaintiff is baseless and the same may kindly be dismissed............................................................ ............"
4. Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that in view of the averments contained in the said written statement, it is for the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority for allotment of an alternative land ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:57:22 :::HCHP 4 to make good the deficiency and in case the petitioner does approaches the appropriate authority in this regard, then his case can be considered for allotment of some alternative land to make good the deficiency.
.
5. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of with the following directions:
(a) The petitioner shall approach the competent authority for allotment of alternative land to make good the deficiency in view of the averments made by the State in the written statement of quoted hereinabove within a period of four weeks from today.
(b) After receipt of the application from the petitioner, the rt competent authority shall process the case for allotment of alternative land to make good the deficiency and pass appropriate orders on the same within a period of six weeks thereafter.
(c) It goes without saying that the alternative land made available to make good the deficiency should be such which fulfills the purpose for which the land was initially allotted in favour of the petitioner under Nautor Rules.CMP No. 848 of 2009
6. In view of the fact that the main writ petition stands disposed of, the present application has become infructuous.
Ordered accordingly.
Copy dasti.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 03, 2016 (bhupender) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:57:22 :::HCHP