LAWS(HPH)-2025-2-9

ROSHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF H.P.

Decided On February 24, 2025
ROSHAN LAL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF H.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Letters Patent Appeal seeks consideration of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 2335 of 2009, decided on 23/8/2018 whereby the said writ petition was dismissed. In effect, dismissal of the writ petition led to the orders passed by the Statutory Authorities while exercising their powers under Sec. 118 of the HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as amended from time time, being upheld whereby the Collector, Solan District Solan, vide order dtd. 7/5/2006 (Annexure P-6) held that the land measuring 03 bighas on khasra No. 744/238/2 in Mauja Barog Tehsil and District Solan, H.P. had been confiscated to the State of HP along with building constructed thereon free from all encumbrances.

(2.) The said order had also been upheld in appeal by the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla on 6/9/2008 (Annexure P-8) and the appeal was also unsuccessful before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) on 2/6/2009 (Annexure P-10) which had led to the filing of the writ petition.

(3.) The reasoning given by the learned Single Judge to uphold the said order was that there was an agreement as such on record dtd. 17/9/1998 (Ext. RW1/A), on the basis of which possession had been transferred without valid permission being granted, though there was evidence to show that the possession was still being retained by the writ petitioner in favour of non-agriculturist-respondent No.3. It was accordingly held that water and electricity connection did not show the same in favour of respondent No. 3. However, son of the said respondent was monitoring the construction work and therefore, it was deemed fit to conclude that presumption of truth was assignable to the entries borne in the relevant revenue record and that Roshan Lal was owner in possession of the property. As such there was violation of statutory provisions under Sec. 118 of the Act and therefore, it could not be said not to be justified for quashing the action of the said authorities.