HARI NAND Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order Present civil writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pleaded therein that petitioner is owner in possession of land comprised in field No. 771/1 and 77/2 measuring 9 biswas situated in mauja Thund Pargana Kaunili Kalan Tehsil and District Shimla in which old house of petitioner is situated. It is pleaded that land was granted to petitioner on dated 14.8.1986. It is further pleaded that all four brothers have relinquished their share in favour of petitioner and petitioner is residing in the house for the last more than forty years after the death of his father late Shri Ishwar Dass. It is pleaded that petitioner is a retired employee for more than three years. It is pleaded that petitioner filed an application for attestation of mutation before A.C. 2nd Grade but non-petitioner No. 3 refused to attest the mutation on the ground that area falls under territorial jurisdiction of another revenue officer. It is pleaded that non-petitioners are duty bound to attest the mutation in accordance with law. It is further pleaded that field revenue agency did not comply the directions of Deputy Commissioner. Prayer for acceptance of civil writ petition sought.

(2.) Per contra reply filed on behalf of non-petitioners pleaded therein that petitioner has no cause of action and petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition. It is pleaded that petitioner is estopped from filing present petition due to his own act and conduct. It is pleaded that petitioner has not approached the Court within stipulated period. It is also pleaded that ownership of land comprised in Khasra No. 77/2 measuring 6 biswas situated in mauja Thund Pargana Kaunili Kalan Tehsil and District Shimla H.P. was granted in favour of petitioner and thereafter file was sent to concerned authority for further action with regard to grant of ownership right of field No. 77/2 measuring 0-6 biswas on market price. It is pleaded that petitioner had filed the application for attestation of mutation after a period of twenty eight years. It is pleaded that petitioner did not produce the order for attestation of mutation in revenue record. It is pleaded that petitioner has no cause of action to file civil writ petition. Prayer for dismissal of petition sought.

(3.) Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the non-petitioners and Court also perused the entire record carefully.