KANSHI RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.11.2007 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the present appellant and directed as follows:

(2.) This case has an interesting background. The predecessor-ininterest of the private respondents filed a petition under Section 54 of the H.P. consolidation of Holdings Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On 20.7.1995 the Additional Director (Consolidation) remanded the case to the Settlement Officer, Bilaspur with a direction to decide the matter afresh. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) decided the matter on 20.5.1996. Thereafter, the present appellant filed an appeal under Section 30 (4) of the Act to the Additional Director (Consolidation) which was dismissed on 23.12.2000. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the present appellant filed a Revision Petition before the Director, Consolidation on 14.5.2001. This petition was returned to the petitioner on the ground that since village Jaballi stood denotified on 15.3.1989 vide Notification No.RAJ-BHU-A(P)51/78- 2327-2334, the consolidation proceedings had come to an end and therefore the Consolidation Act could not be enforced. The learned Single Judge held that the order of the Additional Director could not be said to be final since it was subject to Revision under Section 54 of the Act and consequently, allowed the petition in the aforesaid terms.

(3.) Sh.Ajay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant has raised a strong plea before us that once a village is de-notified the Consolidation Act ceases to operate in that village and consequently no authority under the Consolidation Act would have jurisdiction to hear or decide any matter. Sh.Ajay Sharma has made reference to the provisions of Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Act. Section 15(1) reads as follows: