KANSHI RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioners are three in number. They claim to have acquired interest, by purchase, to the extent of the share of Smt Thakari and Smt. Shankari, in land forming part of Khewat No. 12 in Tika Bakarti, Mauza Jangal, District Hamirpur. The other co -sharers were Sham Lal and Ranpat Mall, both of whom are now dead. Their sons are respondents 3 to 7 in this petition.

(2.) Maiya Ram, the 8th respondent, was a tenant over an area of 7 Kanal and 17 Marlas of land of that Khewat comprised in Khasra No. 413, 420 Min, 439 and 518. The petitioners say that he was a tenant only under Ranpat Mall and Sham Lai and was wrongly shown to be a tenant also under Smt. Thakari and Smt. Shankari. This mistake was, however, corrected by the revenue authorities and in the report Roznamcba pertaining to the year 1967 -68 made by the Patwari of the area, the tenancy of Maiya Ram was shown to be only under Ranpat Mall and Sham Lal. This fact was also incorporated in the Jamabandi pertaining to the year 1968 -69.

(3.) Consolidation operations took place in Mauza Jangal under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971, (for brief the Consolidation Act). Thereafter, Jamabandi was prepared for the year 1976 -77. A separate Khata was prepared for Rampat Mall and Sham Lal in these proceedings and Maiya Ram was allotted a separate Khatauni and also allotted land measuring 10 Kanal and 12 Marias in lieu of land measuring 7 Kanal and 17 Marlas of which he was earlier a tenant under Rampat Mall and Shamlal alone. This made it clear that Maiya Ram had no tenancy rights under Smt. Thakari and Smt. Shankari from whom the present petitioners purchased their entire interest.