DANDU RAM Vs. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case has an unfortunate history. It epitomizes the sad plight and suffering of the parties for which they have none to blame but themselves as they all are members of one family and litigating amongst themselves.

(2.) SETTLEMENT took place in Muhal Jukain in the year 1970 and at that time the entire land measuring 0 -74 -55 hectares along with Malkiati Abadi was joint of the parties. The father of the parties Shri Ram Dayal had 1/3rd share in the said land. The consolidation operation took place in the year 1990 -91. After various proceedings inter se parties regarding the consolidation, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation of Holdings) visited the spot on 06.12.1999 and dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner whereby he wanted Khasra No. 496 to be given to him, but the same had been allotted to the respondent No. 2. He further wanted to regain Khasra No. 510 but the same had been allotted to one Birbal Ram. The petitioner then preferred an appeal before the Additional Director (Consolidation of Holdings), who too vide his order dated 29.08.2006 dismissed the appeal. The petitioner thereafter preferred a revision petition under Section 54 of the H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971, before the Divisional Commissioner, who vide his order dated 03.07.2012 dismissed the revision.

(3.) AT the outset, it may be observed that the scope of judicial review to be exercised by this Court against any decision of a Court or a Tribunal in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 is very limited. The findings recorded by the authorities under the Consolidation Act are findings of fact and cannot be reopened except on very exceptional ground. It is settled law that the Court can interfere only in case the order passed by the authorities below is contrary to the provisions of the Act and further that such contravention has prejudiced the petitioner. In exercise of power of judicial review of the decision of the authorities under the Consolidation Act, this Court is concerned with the legality of procedure followed and not with the validity of the order.