KAUL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE consolidation proceedings were initiated in Mohal Panjeti/365 in the year 1992 -93, in which Khasra No. 772/313, 315, 438, 443, 777/739/448, 740/748, 741/448, 742/448, 455, 461, 619, 622, 638 and 640, Kheot No. 14, Khatauni No. 14, Kittas -14, measuring 5 -18 -11 bighas of land was allotted to the petitioner by the consolidation officials on the basis of spot position. The petitioner and respondent No. 3 are real brothers. Khewat No. 16, Khatauni No. 17, Khasra No. 439, 440, 441, 442 and 462, Kitta -5, measuring 0 -17 -6 bighas were kept joint between the parties as per the copy of Jamabandi for the year 2007 -2008. The respondent No. 3 has filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Mandi Division, Himachal Pradesh, Exercising the powers of the State Government under Section 54 of The H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 on 19.08.2009. According to him, the land bearing Khasra No. 443, measuring 0 -04 -11 bighas was wrongly allotted to the petitioner by the consolidation officials without verifying the factual position prevailing on the spot. The same was allowed on 17.02.2010. The land bearing Khata No. 443, measuring 0 -04 -11 bighas was allotted to respondent No. 3 and in lieu of this land, 1/4 share from Khasra Nos. 439, 440, 441, 442 and 462, Kita 5, total land measuring 0 -17 -06, i.e. 0 -04 -07 bighas, was allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order, dated 17.02.2010. Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the revision petition filed by the respondent No. 3 was barred by delay and laches. He also contended that the consolidation proceedings which commenced in 1992 -1993, have been concluded in 1997. He has placed strong reliance on the judgment of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 4, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 09/06, dated 23.08.2009, whereby the respondent No. 3 has been restrained by permanent prohibitory injunction not to stack any raw material over the suit land, comprised in Khewat Khatauni No. 11 min/11, Khasra No. 443, measuring 0 -4 -11 bighas, situated in Mauza Panjehti, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P.

(2.) MR . Pramod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, has vehemently argued that the dispute is inter se the parties.

(3.) WHAT emerges from the facts enumerated hereinabove, is that the consolidation proceedings have commenced in the year 1992 -1993. These were concluded in the year 1997. The petitioner has been allotted khasra numbers as per the details given hereinabove. The petitioner was specifically allotted Khasra No. 443. Since the respondent No. 3 has stacked construction material and laid pipes on Khasra Nos. 448 and 443, a Civil Suit bearing No. 09/06 was filed by the petitioner against the respondent No. 3 and one Shri Bhup Singh.