ANJANA MAHINDROO Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by one of the original writ petitioners is directed against the judgment, dated 9.7.2010, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Shri Kundan Lal, predecessor -in -interest of the writ petitioners, applied for and was granted Nautor land measuring 2 bighas, 17 biswas and 14 biswansi in village Sanayardi, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi in the year 1968 and was allegedly put in possession of the said property in the year 1970. It is not clear as to how this happened but one Sham Lal was also allotted Nautor land measuring 4 bighas, 2 biswas and 15 biswansi. In this 4 bighas of land, the land, which was originally allotted to Kundan Lal, was also included.

(2.) KUNDAN lal expired in the year 1975. His widow filed a petition before the Deputy Commissioner, who passed an order for review of the Nautor grant in favour of Sham Lal. The Divisional Commissioner accepted the contention of the widow of late Shri Kundan Lal and recommended that the review be accepted and came to the conclusion that since the land had been granted to Shri Kundan Lal, the predecessor -in -interest of the writ petitioners, it could not have been re -allotted to Sham Lal and, therefore, the order of allotment was bad and liable to be set aside. Sham Lal filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, which was rejected.

(3.) AFTER the dismissal of the second appeal on 29th October, 1997, the present writ petitioners filed a CWP No. 1508 of 2002 in the year 2002. This petition was filed five years after the decision of the regular second appeal. This petition was disposed of on 25th February, 2003 with a direction that the Financial Commissioner shall re -hear the matter after giving an opportunity to the petitioners. The Financial Commissioner again rejected the case of the petitioners for grant of Nautor and this led to the filing of a fresh writ petition being CWP No. 719 of 2006. This petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court with a direction that the authority concerned should have supplied all the documents to the petitioners before deciding the matter. Thereafter, the documents were supplied and fresh decision was taken which again went against the petitioners. This led to the filing of CWP No. 1036 of 2008. The learned Single Judge rejected this writ petition on the ground that as per the finding of the Civil Court, Sham Lal had taken the possession of the land sometime in the year 1974 and he was declared to be the owner of the said land by way of adverse possession by the Civil Courts and the petitioners and their predecessor -in -interest virtually had not taken any action for a long time and had lost the land because of their own laxity and inaction and hence they cannot ask for alternative piece of land.