(1.) THE brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the predecessor -in -interest of Respondents Nos. 3 to 5 and 7 filed petition under Section 54 of the Himachal Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevity sake). The Additional Director of Consolidation vide order dated 20.7.1995 remanded the case to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Bilaspur with the direction to decide the matter afresh after perusing the report of the Field Kanungo as well as by keeping in view the orders of the Financial Commissioner (Appeals). The Settlement Officer, Consolidation decided the case on 20.5.1996. The Petitioner filed an appeal under Section 30(4) of the Act before the Additional Director of Consolidation. The appeal was dismissed by the Additional Director of Consolidation on 23.12.2000. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Director of Consolidation, the Petitioner filed a revision before the Director, Consolidation on 14.5.2001. The Petitioner had placed on record the copy of revision preferred before the Director, Consolidation on 2nd August, 2001. There is an endorsement made on the top of the revision that the village Jaballi stood denotified on 15.3.1989 vide Notification No. RAJ -BHU -A(P)51/78 -2327 -2334. The affidavit filed alongwith the revision was sworn on 11th May, 2001. The Petitioner had filed application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for interim relief. The affidavit annexed thereto was also sworn on 11th May, 2001.
(2.) MR . Ajay Sharma, Advocate had strenuously argued that once the village Jaballi stood denotified vide Notification dated 15th March, 1989, the Additional Director, Consolidation could not pass the orders on 20.7.1995 since according to him the consolidation operations ceased. He then contended that the orders passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, dated 20.5.1996 as well as order dated 23.12.2000 passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation are also without jurisdiction. Mr. Ajay Sharma had alternatively argued that if his two pleas as raised are not accepted, in that eventuality, the revision preferred by him on 11.5.2001 before the Director, Consolidation was required to be adjudicated upon. The learned Advocate General had supported the orders passed by the competent authorities. Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan had supported the orders passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation dated 20.7.1995, order dated 20.5.1996 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation on remand as well as the order dated 23.12.2000 passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation. He also submitted that the suit preferred by the Petitioner bearing No. 105/89 has been dismissed by the learned Sub -Judge, Bilaspur on 31.8.1990 and the appeal against the judgment decree dated 31.8.1990 was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur on 30.11.2000.
(3.) THE sequel of events as per the pleadings of the parties is that the predecessor -in -interest of Respondents No. 3 to 5 and 7 had filed revision petition under Section 54 of the Act before the Additional Director, Consolidation on 27.5.1998. This was decided by the Additional Director, Consolidation on 20.7.1995. During the pendency of this revision the village Jaballi stood denotified vide Notification No. RAJ -BHU -A(P)51/78 -2327 -2334, dated 15th March, 1989. The Additional Director, Consolidation remanded the matter back to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation passed the order dated 20.5.1996. This order was assailed by the present Petitioner before the Additional Director, Consolidation on 26.3.1997. The appeal preferred by the Petitioner under Section 30(4) of the Act was dismissed by the Additional Director, Consolidation on 23.12.2000. The revision petition preferred by the Petitioner against the order dated 23.12.2000 under Section 54 of the Act has not been entertained by the Director, Consolidation on the ground that the consolidation proceedings ceased in village Jaballi on the basis of notification dated 15.3.1989. The revision petition dated 11.5.2001 was supported by affidavit dated 11th May, 2001. The application seeking interim relief was also supported by affidavit dated 11.5.2001.