RAM DASS Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition was filed in the public interest praying for direction against the authority to construct the road namely, Phayal Daunti via Samleeg in a time bound period and which road can be eventually utilized as an ambulance road to facilitate the habitants in and around that area. It is not in dispute that the stated road has already been constructed. To that extent, the reliefs claimed in this writ petition are worked out.

(2.) DURING the pendency of this writ petition, however, as the Court was informed about a decree has been passed by the Civil Court in injunction suit filed by the interveners with regard to the same land and against which appeals have been filed by State, this Court thought it appropriate to withdraw the said appeals to be heard along with the present writ petition. That was done keeping in mind that the suit filed by the interveners was simpliciter suit for grant of injunction, which by virtue of interim orders passed by this Court and those orders having been taken to its logical end would stand worked out.

(3.) THE grievance of the interveners, however, is that the interveners are the co-owners in the land, now transferred in the name of the State by the original co-owners to the extent covered by the road, which has been constructed in terms of the orders of the High Court. According to the learned counsel for the interveners, as has been recorded in the order dated 10.4.2012 the co-owners ought to resort to remedy of partition proceedings. However, the co-owners have not taken any steps in that behalf. Further, now that the land has been transferred in the name of the State Authorities in the relevant revenue records, at least they should commence the partition proceedings. This grievance is misplaced. The interveners being co-owners of the land are free to invoke the remedy of partition, if so advised. Indeed, counsel for the interveners has prayed for direction against the State. We are afraid, such direction cannot be issued to the co-owners, assuming that the interveners are justified in contending that the State has become co-owner by virtue of the entry effected in the revenue records. This, however, would not preclude the interveners to invoke the remedy of partition, if so advised. If such proceedings are initiated by any party, we hope and trust that the concerned authorities would dispose of the same expeditiously on its own merits in accordance with law.