KHUSHI RAM Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioners are residents of village Gajandli, Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla, H. P. It is stated in second paragraph of the petition that the petitioners are filing the writ petition for the benefit of the other estate right holders of village Gajandli and they have common interest with those of other estate right holders of village Gajandli, but there is nothing on record either by way of pleading in the petition or by any evidence to show that the petitioners were authorised by all the estate right holders to represent them and file a writ petition in that behalf In such circumstances, this Court cannot accept the statement of the petitioners in paragraph No. 2 that they are filing this writ petition on behalf of all the estate right holders.

(2.) The only contention of the petitioners is that under the provisions of section 8 of the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Act, 1974, two blocks of land situated in khasra Nos. 410 and 457 in the village shall be reserved for common purposes of the village and they cannot be allotted to any individual. Under section 8, the provision is that all land vested in the State Government under the Act shall be utilized for the following purposes : - "(a) an area not less than fifty per cent of the total area vested in the State Government under section 3 of this Act for grazing and other common purposes of the inhabitants of an estate ; and (b) the remaining land for allotment to a landless person or a person whose ho ding is less than one acre to make his holding one acre under a scheme to be framed by the State Government by notification in the official Gazette, The allottee shall pay an amount at the rate of forty -eight times the land revenue and rates and cesses chargeable on the land allotted to him under the said scheme, either in lump sum or in six monthly instalments not exceeding four -

(3.) According to the petitioners these two blocks of lands were pasture land and they ought to have been reserved under the provisions of section 8 towards the 50% of the area to be reserved for common purposes. Reliance is also placed upon some Civil Court order passed before the merger of the area with the Himachal Pradesh State.