LAWS(HPH)-2006-12-42

HARNAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

Decided On December 19, 2006
HARNAM SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF H.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the order Annexure P-3 to the writ petition passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation.

(2.) THE brief facts relevant for the deicsion of the present petition are that consolidation proceedings were commenced in village Suggal, Tappa Saproh, Tehsil Nadaun, in the year 1982-83, under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention and Fragmentation) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is alleged by the petitioners that they were in Government service and could not participate in the proceedings. A petition under Section 54 of the Act was preferred by them before the Director of Consolidation. During these proceedings, the Assistant Consolidation Officer was ordered to prepare a report after visiting the spot to ascertain the factual position. Accordingly, a detailed report Annexure P-2 to the writ petition was prepared by the Assistant Consolidation, Officer on 18.12.1998.One of the primary objections of the petitioners was that old Khasra No.91 has been allotted to the opposite party and the possession of this Khasra number should be retained with the petitioners. The second complaint was regarding corrections of "Karukaans".

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. On going through the reply filed by the State as also by the other respondents, I find that there is no serious opposition to the submissions which have been made by the petitioners. The report Annexure P-2 is not disputed by any of the parties. An attempt was made to show that the order Annexure P-3 is in consonance with the report as aforesaid. On going through Annexure P-3, I find that it is not in accordance with the report Annexure P-2, as some errors have crept in while accepting the report. Under these circumstances, Annexure P-3 is quashed and set aside and a direction is issued to respondent No.2 to pass an order implementing Annexure P-2, which has been accepted by all the parties and making the consequent changes in the revenue record.