PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following substantive reliefs:-

(2.) Case of the petitioners is that consolidation operation took place in Mohal Sambal/328, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. and land of the petitioners alongwith that of respondents No. 3 and 4 and other co-owners was partitioned. At the relevant time, petitioner No. 1 was serving in Military. He was enrolled in the Indian Army on 12/5/1971 and discharged from service on 31/5/1999. As per the petitioners, land comprised in Khasra No. 102 (new), measuring 0/1/17 bigha, old Khasra number of which was 411/343/114, was wrongly allotted to respondents No. 3 and 4, as Consolidation Officials cannot partition constructed area and are only competent to partition the agricultural land. Respondents No. 3 and 4 obtained demarcation of land comprised in Khasra No. 627/396/102, measuring 0/1/17 bigha, situated in Mohal Sambal/328, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P., upon which, a house was existing, which was in the possession of petitioner No. 1. An appeal was filed by petitioner No. 4 under Sec. 30(3) of the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1971 Act'), impleading petitioner No. 1 also as one of the appellants, though petitioner No. 1 had not preferred the same. During the appellate proceedings, respondents No. 3 and 4 and their father manipulated the things. A compromise was shown to have taken place between the petitioners and respondents No. 3 and 4 through their father in terms of order dtd. 11/7/1995 (Annexure P-4), but no compromise was entered into, as the signatures of petitioner No. 4 were forged on the compromise. It is further the contention of the petitioners that even if it is assumed that order dtd. 11/7/1995 was a valid order, then also, fact remained that respondents No. 3 and 4 had filed a Civil Suit No. 97/2003 against petitioner No. 1, claiming possession of land measuring 0/0/17 bigha, without any mention therein of order dtd. 11/7/1995. Respondents No. 3 and 4 were interfering in the peaceful possession of petitioner No. 1 upon the said land where his house was constructed. In these circumstances, petitioners filed a Revision Petition under Sec. 54 of the 1971 Act before respondent No. 2, which stood wrongly rejected by respondent No. 2 in terms of order dtd. 28/6/2022 by holding that the petition was filed belatedly after 26 years and that the matter in fact stood compromised between the parties on 11/7/1995, which was binding on the petitioners, as petitioner No. 4 had made a statement that the compromise would be binding upon all the petitioners.

(3.) According to the petitioners, as order dtd. 28/6/2022, passed by respondent No. 2 was bad in law because the authority erred in not appreciating that petitioner No. 1 was entitled to have the matter re-looked into in terms of the provisions of the 1971 Act, as he was serving in the Indian Army when the earlier order was passed, therefore, the petition deserved to be allowed in terms of the prayers made therein.