Himachal Pradesh High Court
Lila Devi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 10 May, 2019
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 1751 of 2011
Decided on: 10.5.2019
.
Lila Devi ....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others ... Respondents.
................................................................................................
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the petitioner. : Mr. Kulbhushan Power of Attorney
r Holder of the petitioner is in person.
For respondents : M/s. Dinesh Thakur & Sanjeev Sood,
Additional Advocate Generals with
Mr. R.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate
General.
Ajay Mohan Goel, J (Oral)
Mr. Kulbhushan Power of Attorney holder of the petitioner is present in person. He submits that he may be permitted to address the Court.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"a) That impugned orders dated 6.12.2010, Annexure P-4, passed by respondent No.2 and dated 6.10.2001 passed by respondent No.4 may very kindly be quashed and set aside and area of Khasra No. 380 be shown 0-
30-08 hect. According to the revenue records;
1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2019 21:57:50 :::HCHPb) That directions may be given to respondent No.3 to look into the matter afresh and meet the complaint of the petitioner with respect to illegalities having been crept in the revenue records and order correction of the .
same thereby ordering completion of the area of the petitioner to the extent of 0-10-11 hectares;
c) That directions may be given to the respondents to send the competent authority to the spot and complete the area of the petitioner at the spot as per sale deed of the petitioner, in the interest of law and justice;
d) That entire record pertaining to the case may kindly be summoned for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court;
e) That cost of the writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner;
f) Any other or further relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents."
3. During the course of arguments, Power of Attorney Holder of the petitioner has argued that the impugned order dated 6.12.2010, prima facie, is not sustainable, as the same does not deals with the ground taken in the appeal which was filed before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division, i.e. that the Settlement Officer, Dharamshala was not competent to issue orders for changing the record at the time of Consolidation.
4. A perusal of the impugned order dated 6.12.2010 passed in appeal by respondent No.2 demonstrates that this point has not been answered by way of a speaking order while adjudicating the ::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2019 21:57:50 :::HCHP appeal. Thus there is merit in this contention raised on behalf of the petitioner.
.
Accordingly, as prayed for, this petition is partly allowed by setting aside order dated 6.12.2010 passed by respondent No.2 with the direction that appeal, Annexure P-3, shall be heard by respondent No.2 afresh and the same shall be disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order by taking into consideration all the grounds which so stand taken by the petitioner in the appeal. As the appeal was filed in the year 2002, respondent No.2 shall decide the appeal afresh positively within a period of three months from today after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the parties. Petitioner shall apprise respondent No.2 of the orders passed by the Court today by moving an appropriate application before the said respondent positively within a period of two weeks from today.
The petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.
Copy dasti.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge 10th May, 2019.
(Guleria) ::: Downloaded on - 13/05/2019 21:57:50 :::HCHP