SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the allotable pool for Mohal Giora, Mauza Chhatroli, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra was finalized on 23.9.1975. The Tehsil Revenue Officer prepared the list of eligible persons for Mohal Giora on 10.10.1975. The name of the Petitioner figures at Sr. No. 30 of the list. The land proposed to be allotted to the Petitioner was 1 -15 kanals in Khasra No. 264/4. It appears from the record that the list was also approved by the Collector, Nurpur. The land was allotted to the Petitioner on 11.2.1980 when the Petitioner attained the age of majority. The mutation after the payment of Government dues was attested in favour of the Petitioner on 7.5.1980. Respondent No. 3, Shri Narinder Kumar made a complaint to the Revenue Minister against the allotment of land made in favour of the Petitioner. The copy of the complaint was also endorsed to the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division. The copy of the complaint which was endorsed to the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division was forwarded to the District Magistrate for inquiry on 11.2.1999. The matter was enquired by the Sub -Divisional Officer (Civil), Nurpur. The Sub -Divisional Officer (Civil), Nurpur concluded that the land had wrongly been allotted to the Petitioner. The Respondent No. 3 thereafter filed the petition before the Additional District Magistrate, Kangra, District Kangra exercising the powers of the Commissioner under the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Rules, 1975 and the Scheme framed thereunder on 18.4.2000. The Additional District Magistrate, Kangra canceled the order of allotment dated 11.2.1980 with a further direction that the Petitioner be dispossessed of the land in his possession and the possession be handed over to the State of Himachal Pradesh through the Tehsildar concerned. The present petition has been filed to assail the order dated 17.1.2001 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Kangra District.

(2.) MR . Bipin Negi strenuously argued that the order dated 17.1.2001 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. K.D. Sood appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 3 have supported the order dated 17.1.2001.

(3.) IT will be pertinent to take note of a few provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vested and Utilization Act, 1974 and the Rules framed thereunder as well as the Scheme.