LACCHMAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (for brevity 'the Act') came into force on 22-11-1973. A draft statement was served on 24-3-1975 on the appellant by the Collector under Rules 9 and 10 of the Rules framed under the Act stating that he had surplus area of 108.3 bighas and that he could file his objections, if any, within 30 days. The appellant did not file any objection. The Collector passed the order on 14-7-1975 in the absence of any objection confirming the surplus area of 108.3 bighas of the appellant. The appellant was detained under MISA between the period from 8-7-1975 to 1-1-1977. An appeal could be filed against the order of the Collector dated 14-7-1975 within 60 days. Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (for short 'the Land Reforms Act') came into force on 4-10-1975. The appellant could apply for resumption of land under the provisions of the said Act to the extent he was entitled to, within one month from the date of application of Rules 6 from 4-10-1975. In the absence of resumption application, on 20-2-1976, proprietary rights were proposed to be conferred on the private respondents under the Land Reforms Act. Accordingly, on 22-6-1976, mutations of proprietary rights were sanctioned in favour of the tenants. On 20-10-1976, the appellant filed Civil Writ Petition No. 456 of 1976 in the High Court through his son Bhagat Singh, being a General Power of Attorney. In the said writ petition, constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Act and Land Reforms Act was challenged. Further, there was challenge to the orders against the appellant passed under both the aforesaid Acts. It may be stated here itself that the order dated 3-7-1986 dismissing the C.W.P. No. 456 of 1976 attained finality as its validity having not been challenged any further.

(2.) The appellants filed Misc. Revenue Appeal No. 161 of 1989 before the Commissioner (Shimla Division) challenging the correctness and validity of the order made by the Collector on 14-7-1975 holding that the appellant had surplus area of 108.3 bighas. It is to be noted that the appellant neither mentioned in the appeal nor brought to the notice of the Commissioner about his suffering an order of dismissal dated 3-7-1986 passed in C.W.P. No. 456 of 1976. The Commissioner disposed of the appeal on 29-10-1990 remanding the case to the Collector to decide the proceedings as per the provisions of the Act looking to the pleading of the appellant that he had no excess holding on the appointed day and that the relevant records were not available. After remand, the Collector disposed of the case on 25-8-1992 rejecting the contentions of the appellant taking a view that the High Court having rejected the same contentions in C.W.P. No. 456 of 1976 by the order dated 3-7-1986, it was not open to him to consider the same contentions again, applying the principles of res judicata. The appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner again. The Commissioner, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, by a detailed and reasoned order, concurring with the view taken by the Collector, dismissed the appeal on 22-12-1992. The matter did not rest at that. The appellant approached the High Court in the second round by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 1519 of 1995. A Division Bench of the High Court, after consideration of the rival contentions, concluded that the writ petition filed by the appellant was frivolous and ill-advised. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed on 10-3-1997. Hence, the appellant is in appeal before this Court in Civil Appeal No. 3486 of 1998 against the said order of the Division Bench of the High Court.

(3.) After filing of the appeal, on 8-9-1997 the appellant took a short adjournment in this Court to enable the appellant to move an SLP against the earlier order dated 3-7-1986 passed by the High Court in C.W.P. No. 456 of 1976. It is thereafter, SLP was filed by the appellant against the order dt. 3-7-1986 made in the writ petition and the Civil Appeal No. 3487 of 1998 arises out of the same SLP.