LEKH RAM Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 22 -5 -2003 passed in Civil writ petition No. 375 of 1995 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed their petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash Annexure -PE dated 27 -1 -1994, Annexure -PH dated 18 -4 -1995 and Annexure -PJ dated 16 -5 -1995.

(2.) The necessary facts giving rise to this appeal are that: - (i) Village Baldwara, Tehsil Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. and was under consolidation pursuant to the notification issued under Section 14 of the H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), (ii) After issuance of the notification, aforesaid, a declaration was published in the official Gazette; (iii) Demarcation was carried out and other formalities were completed and the Scheme was published. Thereafter consolidation proceedings were initiated. As per the Scheme, the entire area was divided into various blocks related to the value and nature of the land as per the provisions of Section 22(2) of the Act. (iv) The appellants were the owners in possession of 32.82 Hects in Khasra Number 1179/2 and 1173. Therefore, their land at a particular place was 84% in 16 anna D land; (v) The Consolidation officer started re -partition under Section 30 of the Act, allotted 6.54 Hect of land to the appellants out of total area of 17.43 Hects belonging to some other co -sharers and Diwana Ram predecessor -in -interest of respondents No.3 to 6. (vi) The next major portion in the block was of Diwana Ram, the predecessor -in -interest of respondents No.3 to 6 who was having the land measuring 17.45 Hect in Khara Number 1178, i.e. 26% of 16 Anna value. Therefore, he was required to be allotted by carving out the same to the extent of 50% from the holdings and thereafter right -holders having their major portion in that particular block. Diwana Ram was having the next major portion i.e. 1743 Hect and out of this as per the land, up to 50% of the same value was permissible to be deducted and allotted to the appellants. (vii) The Consolidation Officer, pursuant to the Scheme " of the consolidation, actually allotted land to the appellants by carving out the holdings, of the predecessor -in -interest of respondents No.3 to 6 to the extent of 50% and were put in possession of the land to the extent of 0 -6 -54 Hects of the land from Khasra number 1178. (viii) Whereas, said Shri Diwana Ram, aforesaid, was to be allotted a land of the same value, i.e. 16.anna D in lieu of the land excluded from Khasra Number 1178 in order to compensate him in accordance with the Scheme. He was adjusted near khasra number 437 where he was allotted land by deducting it from the holdings of the appellants as well as other right holders. Thus, his holdings were consolidated, at a particular place after making the allotments and adjustments of the land by the Consolidation Officer and both the parties were put into possession according to the allotment of the land. (ix) Said Shri Diwana Ram had filed objections, which were dismissed by the Consolidation Officer on 26.6.88 thus hav;ng felt aggrieved by the order dated 26 -6 -1988, he filed an appeal No. 92/88 before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). While allowing the appeal, he made the following adjustment of the land between the parties, keeping in view of the convenience of said Shri Diwana Ram. Sr. No. Name of owner Area excluded Kh. No. Area. Old. New. Area included. Kh. No. Area. Old. New.

(1.) Sh. Diwana s/o Ram Ditta Khewat No.39 436 min/345, 5 -08/ 509/1 min. 437 346/1 1 -45/6,53. 1178/1. 1005 6 -54.