Himachal Pradesh High Court
Shashi Pal vs The Director Of Consolidation on 16 August, 2021
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Justice, Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1
IN HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 16th DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE
.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 91 of 2010
Between :-
1. SHASHI PAL,
2. RAJENDER PAL,
3. RAKESH KUMAR,
ALL SONS OF LATE KISHORI
LAL, RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE
CHHEK, TEHSIL BARSAR,
DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, H.P.
...APPELLANTS
( BY MR. NITIN THAKUR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION
OF HOLDINGS, H.P. SHIMLA-171 009.
2. SHRI ROSHAN LAL,
3. SHRI PURAN CHAND,
2 TO 3 SONS OF LATE SHRI JAI RAM,
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:53:19 :::CIS
2
RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE CHHEK,
TEHSIL BARSAR, DISTRICT
HAMIRPUR, H.P.
...RESPONDENTS
.
( MR. ASHOK SHARMA,
ADVOCATE GENERAL, WITH
MR. RANJAN SHARMA, MR. VIKAS
RATHORE, MS. RITTA GOSWAMI,
ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERALS
AND MS. SEEMA SHARMA,
DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR
RESPONDENT NO.1)
(MR. ROMESH VERMA, ADVOCATE,
FOR RESPONDENTS NO. 2 AND 3)
____________________________________________________
This Appeal coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, delivered the following :
JUDGMENT
Revision petition filed by respondents No. 2 and 3
against the predecessor of the present appellants under Section
54 of the Himachal Pradesh Holding (Consolidation and
Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 was allowed by the
Director, Consolidation of Holdings H.P. on 03.05.2001. Writ
petition filed by predecessor of the present appellants against this
order was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 27.09.2007.
Aggrieved, the successors-in-interest of the writ petitioner have
filed the instant Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Respondents No. 2 and 3 filed a revision petition
under Section 54 of the Himachal Pradesh Holding (Consolidation
and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 (in short the Act)
.
before respondent No. 1-Director of Consolidation H.P. Their
case was that they were owners of khasra No. 901 measuring 0-
15 marlas. Out of this land, 0-14 marlas was recorded in their
possession whereas remaining 0-1 marlas was recorded in
possession of Kishori Lal as non occupancy tenant. This position
continued to be reflected in the Records of Rights till the
jamabandi for the year 1986-87. However, after the 1988-89
consolidation proceedings, the predecessor of the present
appellants i.e. Kishori Lal was recorded as tenant over the entire
0-15 marlas of land in the 'misal hakiat' for the year 1989-90. The
entry of Kishori Lal's name as tenant over 0-15 marlas of land
comprised in khasra No. 461 (new) corresponding to old Khasra
No. 901 was wrong and mischievous. It was further pleaded that
Shri Kishori Lal had right to be reflected as tenant only over 0-1
marla of land in new Khasra No. 461 corresponding to old Khasra
No. 901.
3. After going through the contentions of the parties and
records, respondent No. 1 found substance in the submissions
made by respondents No. 1 and 2. Vide order dated 03.05.2001,
respondent No. 1 returned a factual finding that Kishori Lal i.e.
predecessor of present appellants had tenancy right only over 0-1
marla of land in Khasra No. 901 (old) corresponding to Khasra
.
No. 461 (new). The error committed by the consolidation staff
during the consolidation proceedings in recording Kishori Lal as
tenant over 0-15 marlas of land was ordered to be rectified. It was
held that Kishori Lal will be recorded as tenant over new Khasra
No. 461 only to the extent of 0-1 marla and the remaining 0-14
4.
r to
marlas of land would be recorded in the ownership and
possession of respondents No. 2 and 3.
Kishori Lal challenged the order dated 03.05.2001
passed by Director Consolidation-respondent No.1 by invoking
writ jurisdiction of this Court. Learned writ Court after verifying the
factual position from the record held that there was neither any
jurisdictional error nor any procedural irregularity in the order
passed by the Director Consolidation of Holdings. The writ
petition was accordingly dismissed on 27.09.2007. Against this
backdrop, the present appellants who are the successors in
interest of the original writ petitioner-Kishori Lal, have filed instant
appeal.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we
directed the State-respondent No.1 to produce entire record of
the case before the Court. The record was produced. Learned
counsel for the private parties inspected the same. The admitted
position which emerges from the record and as pointed out by
.
learned counsel for the parties themselves is that :-
(a) Prior to holding of consolidation proceedings in the
area in 1988-89, there was no entry in the revenue record
showing Kishori Lal as tenant over 0-15 marlas of land in old
Khasra No. 901. He has been shown as tenant only over 0-1
marla of land in the jamabandi for the year 1986-87 in old Khasra
No. 901. The remaining 0-14 marlas of land of this khasra
number was recorded in the ownership and possession of
respondents No. 2 and 3.
(b) After the consolidation proceedings in the year
1988-89, Kishori Lal had been shown as tenant over 0-15 marlas
of land comprised in new Khasra No. 461 corresponding to old
Khasra No. 901 in the 'misal hakiyat' for the year 1989-90. This
change in the revenue entries was objected to by respondents
No. 2 and 3 before the Director, Consolidation by filing revision
petition under Section 54 of the Act. The respondents succeeded
in their challenge. The Director Consolidation held that change in
the revenue entries after the consolidation proceedings was
unauthorized.
It is thus evident that there was only a stray entry in
favour of Kishori Lal - the predecessor-in-interest of the present
appellants showing him as tenant over 0-15 marlas of land
.
comprised in new Khasra No. 461 corresponding to old Khasra
No. 901. This stray entry came in the 'misal hakiyat' for the year
1989-90 after the conclusion of the consolidation proceedings in
the year 1988-89. The revenue record in existence prior to the
consolidation operations, reflected respondents No. 2 and 3 to be
the owners in possession of the 0-14 marlas of land comprised in
Khasra number concerned. Kishori Lal was reflected as tenant
only over 0-1 marla of land in this number in the jamabandi for
the year 1986-87. The consolidation operations were carried out
on the basis of jamabandi for the year 1986-87. There was no
basis for the entry which came in existence after the consolidation
operations reflecting Kishori Lal as tenant over 0-15 marlas of
land. Therefore, the Director Consolidation correctly held that the
consolidation staff could not have given bounty of 0-14 marlas of
land unjustly to Kishori Lal. The learned Single Judge after
appreciating and verifying the factual position has rightly upheld
the impugned order passed on 03.05.2001 by respondent No.1-
Director Consolidation in allowing the revision petition filed by
present respondents No. 2 and 3. In view of facts as have come
out from the record, there is no reason for us to take a different
view. It is well settled that while exercising power of judicial
review, the Court otherwise also is not to act as an appellate
.
authority but to see that the authorities below have acted in
accordance with law. As already noticed above, the factual
position has been accepted by the learned counsel for the parties
after inspecting the record.
Consequently, there is no merit in the present appeal
which is accordingly
applications, if any.
r to
dismissed alongwith the pending
( Ravi Malimath )
Acting Chief Justice
16th August, 2021 (K) ( Jyotsna Rewal Dua )
Judge
