(1.) THE brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.1 to 3, Shri Khazana Ram filed an appeal under Section 30(3) of H.P. Consolidation of Holdings (Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 17.5.1993 in objection No.498/1991. The Settlement Officer accepted the appeal on 18.7.2000 and remanded the case back to the Consolidation Officer, Mandi with a direction to inspect Khasra Nos. 252 and 226 and make allotment as per convenience and deficiency be made good from corner. The Consolidation Officer in his order dated 6.6.2001 had allotted the land in the following manner:-
(2.) THE petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated 6.6.2001 before the Settlement Officer on 29.7.2001. The Settlement Officer after inspecting the spot on 30.4.2002 in the presence of the parties had found that area of Khasra No.249 allotted to the petitioner by Consolidation Officer was digphot and of poor quality, whereas direction was issued to the Consolidation Officer for allotment of area from Khasra Nos. 252 and 226. The Settlement Officer gave a finding that the amendment order dated 6.6.2001 in remand case passed by the Consolidation Officer was against the direction in case No.9/2001 under Section 30 (3) as per value and feasibility of cultivation. Consequently, the Settlement Officer had passed the following order whereby the amendment was carried out and allotment of Khasra No.252 min old was made:-
(3.) MR . Karan Singh had strenuously argued that the order passed by the Director in revision under Section 54 of the H.P. H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the order passed by the Settlement Officer on 3.5.2002 is in accordance with law and the same is required to be up-held. Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 had supported the order passed by the Director on 1.10.2005.