LAWS(HPH)-2018-9-108

DEEPAK SINGH Vs. STATE OF H P

Decided On September 20, 2018
DEEPAK SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF H P Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby the application filed for amendment of plaint was ordered to be rejected.

(2.) The controversy between the parties is in respect of land measuring 0-9-3 bighas bearing Khasra Nos. 19, 121 and 123 situated at Mauza Chail/51, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi, H.P. The plaintiff/petitioner has filed the suit for declaration with permanent injunction against the defendants/respondents alleging that the land measuring 0-13-15 bighas comprised in Khewat Khatauni No. 19/33, Khasra Nos. 209, 212 and 226 situated in Mauza Chail/51, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi was previously recorded in the ownership of petitioner and respondents No. 4 to 6 and others. Consolidation started in the year 1989-90 and under the consolidation scheme a Consolidation Committee was appointed of which respondent No. 3 was elected President. Respondents No. 1 and 2 are the sons of respondent No. 3 and on 6.3.1992, the respondents in connivance with the Consolidation Authorities filed separate application for partition of land and the Consolidation Officer without the consent and even without hearing the petitioner and respondents No. 4 to 6 effected partition vide order dated 8.6.1992. While doing so he ignored the actual physical and joint possession of the parties and wrongly clubbed the land of Khewat No. 19/33 measuring 0-13-15 bighas with the other joint land of parties of which respondents No. 1 and 2 were neither the co-owner nor in possession thereof. As a result of this, the suit land was wrongly allotted to respondents No. 1 and

(3.) It was further alleged that suit land was still in actual physical possession of the petitioner and respondents No. 4 to 6 exclusively and the same had not been delivered to respondents No. 1 and 2 by the Consolidation Authorities till date. Accordingly, the petitioner filed the suit for declaration that the order dated 8.6.1992 passed in partition application No. 57/92 by the Consolidation Officer, Sundernagar, was wrong, illegal and void and not in conformity with the provisions of H.P. Holdings (Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation) Act, 1971 (for short the Act). Similarly, order dated 24.9.1997 passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings H.P., in Revision Petition No. 17/94 was wrong, illegal, null and void and not binding upon the petitioner and respondents No. 4 to 6 and the revenue entries showing respondents No. 1 and 2 as owner in possession of the suit land be declared illegal, null & void with further prayer to restrain respondents No. 1 to 3 from forcibly occupying the shares of petitioner and respondents No. 4 and 5 of the suit land and from changing its nature etc.