Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sh. Ramesh Chand vs State Of H.P. Through on 29 September, 2021
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Justice, Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 29th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (MAIN)
No. 1801 of 2012
AND
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 490 OF 2012
Between :-
1. SH. RAMESH CHAND,
S/O SH. RODA RAM
2. SH. SHER SINGH,
S/O SH. RODA RAM,
BOTH RESIDENTS OF
VILLAGE JAROUT,
TAPPA KOHLA,
TEHSIL NADAUN,
DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, H.P.
...APPELLANT
(BY MS. ARCHANA DUTT,
ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF H.P. THROUGH
FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER
(APPEALS) GOVERNMENT OF
H.P.,SHIMLA-9.
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:08:58 :::CIS
2
2. SH. VIJAY SINGH,
S/O SH. BHAGWAN DASS.
3. SH. JAGDEV SINGH,
.
S/O SH. BHAGWAN DASS.
4. SH. JAGDISH SINGH,
S/O SH. BHAGWAN DASS.
ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE
JAROUT,TAPPA KOHLA,
TEHSIL NADAUN,
DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, H.P.
5. SH. CHUNI LAL,
S/O SH. DUNI CHAND.
6. SH. ARMAR SINGH,
S/O SH. DUNI CHAND.
7. SH. BASANT SINGH,
S/O LATE SH. GANGA RAM.
8. SMT. CHANCHLA DEVI,
D/O LATE SH. MOHAN LAL.
9. ANJU KUMARI,
D/O LATE SH. MOHAN LAL.
10. SH. ASHWANI KUMAR,
S/O LATE SH. MOHAN LAL.
11. SH. JITENDER KUMAR,
S/O LATE SH. MOHAN LAL.
12. SMT. PRITAM DEVI, WIDOW OF
LATE SH. MOHAN LAL.
ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE
JAROUT, P.O. SERIA, TEHSIL
NADAUN, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR
(H.P.)
13. H.P. PWD, THROUGH
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:08:58 :::CIS
3
COLLECTOR, HAMIRPUR,
DISTRICT HAMIRPUR,
HIMACHAL PRADESH.
14. THE KANGRA COOPERATIVE
.
PRIMARY LAND DEVEOPMENT
BANK LTD. DHARAMSHALA,
DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P.
15. SH. SHAMSHER SINGH, S/O SH.
BHAGWAN DASS.
16. SH. MAHINDER SINGH, S/O SH.
BHAGWAN DASS.
BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE
JAROUT, TAPPA KOHLA,
TEHSIL NADAUN,
DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, H.P.
...RESPONDENTS
(MR. ASHOK SHARMA,
ADVOCATE GENERAL, WITH
MR. RANJAN SHARMA, MR. VIKAS
RATHORE, MS. RITTA GOSWAMI,
ADDITIONAL ADVOCATES GENERAL
AND MS. SEEMA SHARMA,
DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL, FOR R-1
AND 13)
____________________________________________________
This Appeal coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, delivered the following :
JUDGMENT
Respondents No. 2 to 12 and 14 to 16 are yet to be
served even after 9 years of filing this Letters Patent Appeal. With
the consent of learned counsel for the appearing parties, we have
heard them on the application for condonation of delay as well as
on merits of the matter.
2. The petitioners had filed a writ petition bearing CWP
.
No. 1184 of 2006. The writ petition was against the orders passed
by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) on 30.05.2006 and
05.09.2006. Vide impugned orders, the Financial Commissioner
on the basis of a compromise entered into between some of the
contesting parties, had disposed off the entire matter by directing
that the parties could seek re-partition on the basis of jamabandi
for the year 1991-92. The writ petition was allowed on 21.03.2007
holding that a compromise entered into between some of the
parties cannot be enforced upon the other parties to the litigation
who had not consented to the same. The impugned orders
passed by the Financial Commissioner on 30.05.2006 and
05.09.2006 were set aside. The Financial Commissioner was
directed to decide the matter afresh on its merits after hearing the
parties.
3. The matter {Revision Petition No. 34/2003 (old) and
67/2007 (new)} was thereafter heard by the Financial
Commissioner. Vide order dated 19.08.2008, the revision petition
was allowed. The order passed by the Collector on 23.10.1998
was held to be non-speaking. The matter was remanded to the
Assistant Collector 1st Grade Nadaun with direction to re-partition
the land after taking objections of all concerned and to decide the
same in accordance with law within next six months. Aggrieved
against the order dated 19.08.2008 passed by the Financial
.
Commissioner, the appellants instituted CWP No. 2410 of 2008.
Their writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge on
20.07.2012. It is in the aforesaid background that the writ
petitioners have preferred instant appeal.
4. On consideration of the entire material, we do not
find it to be a case calling for any interference in the impugned
judgment. The Financial Commissioner, after perusing the entire
record, had held that there was unequal allotment of land
alongside the road. That while partitioning, even the quality of the
land being allotted was not taken into consideration. The spot
map (tatima) attached did not disclose as to which khasra
numbers were adjoining to and abutting the roadside. The spot
map was even otherwise incomplete. The road was not depicted
on the spot map. The order passed by the Collector was non-
speaking. It did not deal with the contentions raised by the
respondents. For the aforesaid reasons, the Financial
Commissioner had allowed the petition filed by the respondents
and remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector 1 st Grade
Nadaun to re-partition the land. We, therefore, do not find any
error in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge
affirming the order passed by the Financial Commissioner.
For all the aforesaid reasons, we do not deem it
.
appropriate to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
Consequently, there is no merit in the present petition, which is
accordingly dismissed.
( Ravi Malimath )
Acting Chief Justice
29th September, 2021 (K) ( Jyotsna Rewal Dua )
Judge
