PARSINO DEVI Vs. THE STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners claim to be recorded tenants under one Sh. Malkiat Singh and were holding lands in their possession in several villages in Tehsil Amb, District Una. The respondents were also holding lands as tenants of one Mehar Singh in those very villages. The lands of the petitioners as well as of the respondents were subjected to consolidation and re -partition in the year 1962. It appears that in the re partition, the respondents lands situated on the roadside were allotted in favour of the petitioners. The parties, however, did not take any action against the same till 20 -7 -1982 when respondent No. 2 and others filed a revision under section 54 of the H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 (hereinafter called the Act) before the respondent No.

(1.) The respondent No. 1, admittedly enjoys powers of the State Government under the aforesaid provision. The said respondent, by his order dated 18 -7 -1983, Annexure P -A, held that though the consolidation scheme did not make a provision for reservation of roadside land to the holders thereof, it was a salutary principle which should have been followed at the time of re -partition. The respondent No. 1, there fore, held that the re -partition done in 1962 was not proper and consequently allowed the revision directing that the lands held by the petitioners on the roadside be given to the respondents by re -arranging distribution in accordance with the said order. The petitioners felt aggrieved by the said order and have preferred this writ petition challenging the legal validity thereof.

(2.) It may be mentioned that during the pendency of this writ petition, there was a dispute between the parties as to who was in actual possession of the land in dispute. A Commissioner was appointed to visit the spot and give the report. The report of the Commissioner indicated that the land in dispute was still in possession of the petitioners. The said report has been accepted by this Court. It is, therefore, clear that the impugned order of the respondent No. 1 has not been given effect to so far.