AMAR NATH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these matters have been placed before us in view of a point raised in Civil Writ Petition No. 346 of 2000, titled Amar Nath and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by Consolidation Officer, Una, under sub -section (2) of Section 30 of H.R Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the petitioner preferred revision to the State Government under Section 54 of the Act. The order, however, was subject to the appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation of Holdings), Bilaspur, under Section 30(3) of the Act. It was further subject to appeal under Section 30(4) of the Act. The petitioner did not avail of those remedies and directly approached the State Government. The Director of Consolidation of Holdings, Himachal Pradesh, in these circumstances, by an order dated January 17,2001, dismissed the revision petition as not maintainable under Section 54 of the Act, in the light of a judgment delivered by a Single Judge of this Court on July 23, 1999 in Civil Misc. Petition (Main) No. 663 of 1996, titled Sudama v. Roop Singh and another.

(2.) In Sudama, almost a similar question arose before this Court. During the consolidation proceedings in District Bilaspur, the petitioner was allotted some land. According to him, however, he was entitled to larger area. He, therefore, preferred objections, which were rejected by consolidation authorities. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner against the rejection of the objections before the Consolidation Officer, who dismissed it on June 7, 1987. The petitioner then preferred further appeal under subsection (3) of Section 30 of the Act before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Bilaspur, who allowed the appeal on August 28, 1991 and remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer decided the matter afresh on January 9, 1992. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred an appeal to Settlement Officer, which was dismissed on October 12, 1992. After the dismissal of said appeal, he preferred revision petition under Section 54 of the Act, which was heard by the Additional Director and allowed on October 6, 1995. When the matter came up before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, it was contended by the opposite party that under sub -section (4) of Section 30, a further appeal lay to the Director of Consolidation of Holdings and against the order of Director of Consolidation of Holdings, a revision would lie to the State Government under Section 54 of the Act. Since no appeal before the Director of Consolidation of Holdings was filed against the order passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and a revision was preferred under Section 54 of the Act to the State Government directly, it was not maintainable. The contention was upheld by the learned Single Judge by observing that "no revision petition was maintainable under Section 54 of the Act". The order passed by the Additional Director, Land Records on October 6, 1995, was, therefore, quashed and set aside.

(3.) In CWP No. 346 of 2000, correctness of the view taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Sudama was questioned. Relying on the relevant provisions of the Act as also some of the decisions of this Court as well as of High Court of Punjab and Haryana, it was contended that the view expressed in Sudama requires reconsideration as it does not lay down correct law. The Division Bench found prima facie substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and admitted the matter. Some other matters also, thereafter, came up for admission either before a Division Bench or before a single Judge under Article 227 of the Constitution and they were also ordered to be heard together. Meanwhile, CWP No. 893 of 1992, titled Tulsi Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, came up for final hearing. We, therefore, thought it fit to hear the learned Counsel appearing on either side on the question regarding maintainability of revision under Section 54 of the Act without exhausting remedies of appeal provided in Section 30 of the Act and the effect thereof.