Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sh. Ram Prakash vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 6 October, 2016
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Ajay Mohan Goel
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.: 2637 of 2016
Date of Decision: 06.10.2016
______________________________________________________________________
.
Sh. Ram Prakash .....Petitioner.
Vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh and others .....Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
of
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the petitioner: Ms. Vandana Misra, Advocate.
For the respondents: rt Mr. Kush Sharma, Deputy Advocate
General, with Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant
Advocate General.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral):
The petition has been filed with the following prayers:
"(i) That appropriate direction may kindly be issued to respondents No. 2 and 3 to carry out a proper and detailed demarcation of petitioners Khasra No. 1388/1257/301 which is situated 5 Karams towards the right side of the PWD Shed/Godown as per tatima (Annexures P-5, P-6 and P-7) strictly in accordance with the instruction of Financial Commissioner, in this regard as contained in H.P. Settlement Manual, by an officer not below the rank of Distt. Revenue Officer (DRO).
(ii) That writ of certiorari may kindly be issued setting aside the impugned eviction order dated Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:22:26 :::HCHP 2
05.06.2006 passed by Sub Divisional Collector, Karsog, Mandi, File No. 2 (Annexure P9) as well as the order dated 16.10.2008 passed by the Ld. Commissioner Mandi Division in Case No. 190/06 .
who has confirmed order of eviction is a appeal (Annexure P12).
Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly be granted to the petitioner and justice be done."
of
2. The facts as pleaded in the petition are that one Bhimu was allotted Nautor land comprised in Khasra No. 1257/1083/301/1 and he sold the same to Smt. Guddi, who built two storeyed shop over the said rt land. The petitioner claims to have purchased the said land from Smt. Guddi on 29.10.2001 and thereafter re-built four storeyed building thereupon.
3. Proceedings for eviction were initiated against the petitioner under the Himachal Pradesh Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1971 (for short 'Act'), which culminated into the order of eviction passed by Sub-Divisional Collector, Karsog on 05.06.2006. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Mandi, who dismissed the same vide his order dated 16.10.2008.
4. The petitioner thereafter filed a Civil Suit assailing the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi as also the Sub-Divisional Collector. However, Civil Court ordered the return of the plaint on the ground it lacked jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the suit. These findings were assailed by the petitioner before the first appellate Court, i.e., ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:22:26 :::HCHP 3 Additional District Judge, Mandi, who vide his judgment dated 07.12.2011 dismissed the appeal.
5. The petitioner thereafter questioned both the orders that had .
been passed under the Act before this Court by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, which was registered as CMPMO No. 58 of 2012. It was averred that both the authorities lacked jurisdiction and orders were also questioned on the ground that no proper demarcation had been carried out before passing the orders of eviction of the of petitioner.
6. The petition came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 15th rt March, 2016, wherein this Court recorded the following findings:-
"(i) the demarcation had been conducted in accordance with law; and
(ii) that the orders passed against the petitioner by the Sub-Divisional Collector on 05.06.2006 and by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, dated 16.10.2008, are in conformity with law."
This would be clear from a perusal of para-6 of the judgment, which reads thus:
"6. Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate also argued that the demarcation was not conducted in accordance with law. However, fact of the matter is that there is a detailed demarcation report. Demarcation was conducted by Field Kanungo and it was verified and checked by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade (Naib Tehsildar), Karsog. In the demarcation report, encroachment on Khasra Nos. 1088/304/1 and ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:22:26 :::HCHP 4 1088/304/2 was detected. Copy of the Tatima/spot map is Ext. PW-2/A. Order passed against the petitioner by the Sub Divisional Collector on 5.6.2006 and by the Divisional Commissioner dated 16.10.2008 .
are in conformity with law. These orders have attained finality. The same could not be assailed before a Civil Court in view of specific bar under Section 15 of the Act."
7. It is evident from the aforesaid judgment that both the reliefs of as claimed in this petition have already been declined by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the remedy of the petitioner, if any, is to assail this order rt before the competent Court of jurisdiction.
8. What the petitioner seeks in the instant petition is virtually asking this Court to set aside the findings rendered by a Single Judge of this Court in CMPMO No. 58 of 2012, which is impermissible under the law. The remedy of the petitioner, if any, is elsewhere and not by way of instant petition.
The petition being misconceived is dismissed in limine, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge October 06, 2016 (bhupender) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:22:26 :::HCHP