PRAKASH CHAND Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 raised objections against the consolidation proceedings before the Consolidation Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur vide file No. 97 of 1993 under Section 30(2) of the H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971. The objections raised by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were dismissed by the Consolidation Officer. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Bilaspur against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. The Settlement Officer remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer, Bilaspur. The Consolidation Officer modified the previous order while issuing certain directions. Against this order passed by the Consolidation Qfficer, both the parties i.e. the Petitioners as well as Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed appeals before the Settlement Officer. Settlement Officer remanded the case No. 8 of 1996 and 5 of 1996 on 27.1.1997 to the Consolidation Officer, Bilaspur. The Consolidation Officer passed the order in favour of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on 13.7.1998. The Petitioners preferred an appeal against the order dated 13.7.1998 before the Settlement Officer under Section 30(3) H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971. The Settlement Office accepted the appeal of the Petitioners on 22.12.2000 and allotted Khasra No. 391/ 1, 392, 394 and 395 and khasra Nos. 949 and 749 to the Petitioners. The Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 preferred an appeal against the order dated 22.12.2000 before the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings. The Additional Director Consolidation accepted the appeal of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on 7.9.2001. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 7.9.2001; the Petitioner preferred the petition under Section 54 of the H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 before the Director Consolidation of Holdings. The Director Consolidation of Holding dismissed the petition on 1.10.2005. The Petitioners have assailed orders dated 7.9.2001 and 1.10.2005 passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings and Director, Consolidation Holdings, H.P.

(2.) MR . Y. Paul, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioners had strenuously argued that both the orders i.e. 7.9.2001 and 1.10.2005 are not speaking orders and are liable to be set aside.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.