BISHAMBARI DEVI Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioners praying therein to call for records and proceedings from Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, by which he granted interim stay on December 2, 2000 against an order passed by Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, and to quash and set aside the said order. A prayer, directing the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh (Respondent No. 1), has also been made to hold an inquiry into the matter in respect of averments and allegations made by the petitioners against Respondent No. 2, and to submit a report. A further prayer is made that revision filed by Respondents No. 3 to 12 before the second Respondent be held to be not maintainable, and the proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 2 be quashed and set aside. In the alternative, the case may be transferred from Respondent No. 2 to any other officer.

(2.) It appears that consolidation proceedings were initiated by the authorities in accordance with the H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). An order was passed under sub-section (3) of Section 30 of the Act and, being aggrieved by the said order, the present petitioners filed an appeal before the Additional Director, Consolidation under sub-section (4) of Section 30 of the Act. The said appeal was placed for hearing before the them Additional Director Consolidation one K. Certain allegations were levelled by the present Respondents No. 3 to 12 against K and a prayer was made before the Director, Consolidation of Holdings to transfer the said case to some other officer. The record discloses that the said prayer was granted and the appeal, which was before K was ordered to be transferred to another officer M. In view of the fact however, that there was re-structuring of the department, the post of Additional Director, Land Records was abolished by the Government and it was re-designated as Deputy Commissioner (Revenue). M to whom the case was allotted for hearing, had no jurisdiction to deal with the case. Hence, he had to return the case papers. The then Director, Consolidation once again sent the said case for hearing to K against whom allegations were made and the case was transferred. The case was thus decided by K against which revision was filed under Section 54 of the Act which has been entertained by Respondent No. 2 and is pending with him. On December 4, 2000, an interim order was passed by Respondent No. 2. The relevant part reads as under :

(3.) It is not in dispute by and between the parties that the revision is pending before the second Respondent and awaits final hearing. It is the interlocutory order, which is challenged by the present petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution.