TARSEM CHAND Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution against an order passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Shimla respondent No. 1 herein on 25th July, 2000.

(2.) The case of the petitioner was that he and his brothers were having l/3rd share in the land comprising Khasra No. 2258 situated in village Chalali, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra in the Jamabandi for the year 1984 -85. According to. the petitioner, one Smt. Goga Devi was also having l/3rd share and respondents No. 2 to 5 (contesting respondents herein) were having rest of the 1/3rd share in the said land. The land comprising Khasra No. 2258 is abutting the, road "Dehra -Chintpurni". 54 metres of the Khasra touches the road, out of which 0 -23 -75 C, about 0 -10 -00 C is plain/levelled land and rest of the land of the said Khasra number is slanting and precipitoils. According to the petitioner, about 37 metres of land of old Khasra No. 2258 abut the road. A copy of Jamabandi is also annexed to the petition. It is asserted by the petitioner that in the year 1989 -90, the land comprising Khasra No. 2258 was re -partitioned during the consolidation operation. A scheme was prepared wherein it was provided that the land abutting the road will be partitioned in such a manner that all co -sharers will be allotted land in accordance with the share on the basis of the location of the land. It was, however, not done. The petitioner hence, made a grievance before the authorities. It is stated by the petitioner that though the scheme was finalised in 1988, the petitioner came to know about the same only in the year 1992 about the allotment to respondents No, 2 to 5. He, therefore, immediately approached the Director, Consolidation of Holdings exercising the power under Section 54 of the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The case was registered as case No. 394 of 1992 and was transferred to Additional Director of Consolidation of Holdings, respondent No. 1 herein, who by the order impugned in the present petition, dismissed the same.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition.