GIAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :- By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek the relief of issuance of appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the respondents to :

(2.) On 23-8-1979, two Notifications, one pertaining to special revision of the existing record of rights under Section 33 of the H. P. Land Revenue Act, 1953 (hereinafter shortly referred to as the Act) and the other for general assessment of land revenue under Section 53 of the Act, were issued by the State Government (first respondent). Both these notifications were published in the H. P. Extraordinary Gazette dated 1-9-1979. For carrying out the revision of records operation, respondent No. 4 issued instructions and supplementary instructions from time to time (P-21) (hereinafter referred to as 'compendium of instructions'). The settlement operation was started in the year 1979. During the pendency of the revenue settlement operations carried on in the aforesaid tehsils, the petitioners found that settlement staff committed various illegalities and irregularities in carrying out the revision of the existing record of rights. They made grievances to the authorities concerned, but of no avail. Ultimately, they have filed the instant writ petition seeking various reliefs, referred to above.

(3.) The main case of the petitioners is that although the State Govt. issued the above said two Notifications with specific purpose for special revision of record of rights and general assessment of land revenue respectively, respondent No. 4 by executive instructions by way of compendium of instructions and supplementary instructions (P-21), issued by him, changed the nature of the settlement into Jadeed (new settlement) without having any authority of law in this behalf. Petitioners aver that procedure for bringing up-to-date at re-settlement the field map of the previous settlement without recourse to re-measurement as per instructions contained in Appendix XXI pursuant to of the Punjab Settlement Manual, has not at all been followed nor the settlement has begun with an examination of existing maps forming part of the record of rights under S. 32 of the Act. It is asserted that existing record of rights has been ignored as the revenue staff has started the settlement by having recourse to re-measurement afresh in the entire area without taking any preliminary steps with a view to make choice between re-measurement and revision. Petitioners further aver that the various instructions of compendium of instructions, namely, 2, 4 (1 to 8) and supplementary instructions 1 to 3, 5, 23 and 32 thereof are in conflict with statutory provisions of the Act and the Rules. Resultantly, not only revenue estates have been split up into Up-Muhals without any authority of law but also classification of lands and orchards have illegally been recorded in the new record of rights. In addition, sanctity of presumption of truth attached to the record of rights has been ignored while conducting settlement operations and wazib-ul-arz (village settlement papers) have been prepared illegally, without conforming to the statutory provisions of law and rules or instructions issued by respondent No. 3 which has affected the vested rights of the estate-right-holders and residents of these revenue estates. Apart from the above, it is averred that forest settlement is also going on simultaneously with the land settlement. Even wazib-ul-arz pertaining to the forests are being prepared without the consultation of and without recording the statements of the estate-right-holders. Besides, policy decision with respect to the regularisation of encroachment has not been followed while preparing the revised record of rights. It has been asserted that the recourse to fresh measurement of the entire area has given rise to errors in land measurement. Briefly stating, their claim is that procedure prescribed as per instructions contained in Appendix VII for the first regular settlement, instead of instructions contained in Appendix XXI for special revision of record of rights, is being followed, which has not only affected the rights of the residents of the aforesaid revenue estates but has also resulted into wrong preparation of record of rights. In addition, the petitioners have alleged that despite several representations made to the authorities concerned, their grievances have not been remedied. As per them, the faulty record, containing errors, has prematurely been handed over to the revenue Mohal staff despite numerous objections of the various farmers for correction of jamabandies and field maps etc. which are still pending decision under inquiry.