ANITA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioner owned and possessed land measuring 0 -2 -4 bighas comprised in Khasra No.5132 measuring 0 -5 -0 bighas to the extent of her share i.e. 4/99 in Phati Burwa, Kothi Manali, District Kullu at village Bhahang. The house of the petitioner was completely washed away during heavy rains in the month of September, 1995. The State Government had issued instructions on 25th September, 1995 under the subject Damage due to cloud burst, excessive rain etc. during kharif 1995 -. The State vide these instructions dated 25th September, 1995 had decided that two biswas of land may be given in exchange to those persons whose residential houses have been completely damaged/washed away as a sequel to these excessive rains etc. during Kharif 1995 and could not be re -constructed on the same site. The instructions dated 25th September, 1995 were followed by another instructions dated 13.11.1995. It was decided vide this notification dated 13.11.1995 that such affected persons/families who do not have their own suitable land should be identified and treated as houseless persons. Their cases were to be considered under the terms and conditions mentioned in this letter. Before the instructions dated 25th September, 1995 and 13th November, 1995, the grant of land in exchange was to be regulated under the instructions dated 8.11.1988.

(2.) THE petitioner submitted an application (Annexure P1) to the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu to grant her some piece of land to enable her to construct a house. The application was forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner to the Tehsildar, Kullu, who in turn forwarded the same to the Naib Tehsildar, Manali. The Naib Tehsildar, Manali informed the Tehsildar, Kullu that no land was available in village Bhahang which could be granted to the petitioner in exchange. The Tehsildar, Kullu also took up the matter with the President, Municipal Council, Kullu, who initially declined to grant ˜No Objection Certificate for the grant of land in Phati Dhalpur. Thereafter the matter was considered by the Council in its meeting held on 30.6.1999 and it was resolved to issue ˜No Objection Certificate to the petitioner. The case then was forwarded by the Tehsildar, Kullu to the Collector, Kullu on 10.9.1999. The necessary permission was accorded by the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu on 20.11.1999 for the grant of 0 -2 -0 bighas of land comprised in Khasra No. 1942/1777/1/1 out of 0 -19 -0 bighas of land in khasra No. 1942/1777/1 in exchange of land measuring 0 -2 -0 bighas i.e. 4/99 share of 0 -5 -0 bighas comprised in Khasra No. 5132 situated in Phati Burwa, Kothi Manali, District Kullu. The mutation was attested in favour of the petitioner bearing No. 4075 on 29.12.1999. The grant made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled along with mutation by the Collector (Deputy Commissioner), Kullu. The petitioner submitted representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Kullu. The matter was reconsidered by the Collector, and the land was re -allotted in favour of the petitioner. The Collector again cancelled the grant made in favour of the petitioner on 12.7.2001 and the mutation was also cancelled. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 12.7.2001 in this petition.

(3.) THIS Court had also directed respondents No. 1 and 2 on 2nd August, 2007 to comply with the order dated 27.4.2007. Respondents No. 2 had filed compliance and has placed on record copies of letters dated 24.8.1987 and 7.8.2007 (Annexure R -1 and Annexure R -2). The petitioner filed detailed reply to this affidavit on 5.9.2007. Sh. Mohan Potdar filed rejoinder to the reply of respondent No. 2 whereby he has placed on record copy of order dated 20.11.2000 passed by the Collector, Sub Division, Kullu, District KUllu. This Court on 7.3.2008 directed the respondents to file a supplementary affidavit stating therein whether the case of the petitioner could be covered under the scheme or not. The Collector has filed detailed supplementary affidavit taking a specific stand that the land under the scheme could be granted to houseless or landless persons and since the petitioner did not fall under either of these categories, she could not be allotted the land. The endeavour of the Collector was also to bring into the notice of the Court that the husband of the petitioner had also purchased a house in District Kullu. He has also placed on record the copy of the representation made by the public of the area.