MEHLI DEVI Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against order Annexure D dated 26 -9 -1983 passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings exercising powers of the State Government under section 54 of the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1971 (hereafter referred to as Act).

(2.) The petitioner and legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 3 are right -holders in revenue estate Matwar in Tehsil Hamirpur. Consolidation operations were held in the said revenue estate in pursuance of the notification. In the meeting of the proprietary body held on 18 -9 -1981, the petitioner made a claim for 2 Kanals of area for the purposes of extension of her existing Abadi and respondent No. 3 (deceased) likewise also made a claim of 2 Kanals for the same purpose. It may be useful to point out here that no Khasra numbers were mentioned by either of them in the said claim which has been placed on record as Annexure A, although, the name of the petitioner figures at serial No. 6 and that of deceased respondent No. 3 at serial No. 12, 3 On 20 -12 -1981, allotments were made by the Consolidation Authorities and the petitioner was allotted one Kanal area comprising Khasra Nos. 272/92 and 273/92 each measuring 10 Marlas. Shri Lelo Ram (deceased respondent No. 3) was allotted Khasra No. 188/90 measuring 0 -9 Marlas and 233 -234/142 min measuring 0 -6 Marlas and again 274/ 113 and 275/113 measuring 1 Kanal. Thus, Lelo Ram was allotted 1 Kanal 15 Marlas against his claim for 2 Kanals of area.

(3.) Lelo Ram (deceased respondent 3) filed a petition under section 54 of the Act against this allotment alleging that he was in possession as owner of land comprising Khasra No. 273/92 measuring 0 -10 Marlas and the same was valued as 8 Annas. The Consolidation Authorities wrongly allotted this Khasra number to the petitioner and in fact, Khasra No. 273/ 113 which measures 0 -10 Marlas and is valued as 12 Annas, stood allotted to him. It was also said that objections under section 30 (2) were raised before the Consolidation Officer regarding allotment of Khasra No. 102/2/3 and after spot inspection, O -4 Marlas in Khasra No. 102/2/3 was allotted to deceased respondent No. 3 and in order to reach this field, he had to go through Khasra No. 273/92 which stands allotted to the petitioner. It was also said that there was no other passage to reach the above said Khasra number and, therefore, Khasra No. 273/92 could not be allotted to the petitioner and the same was against the scheme.