RAVINDER CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition has been filed by six persons joining together claiming to be the owner and permanent residents of the locality situated at Khalini, Shimla seeking for the following reliefs :

(2.) The land comprising in Khasra No. 862/188/10 was said to have been earlier owned and possessed by one Smt. Sarita Prasad wife of Shri Ajay Parsad and that respondent No. 6 Dr. R.S. Santoshi applied for permission to purchase the aforesaid land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 152/190 Khasra No. 86 2/188/10 measuring 435.5 sq. yards corresponding to new Khasra No 943 as per Missal Haquiat Bandobast Jadid. By its proceeding dated 28-11-1989, the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Revenue Department, accorded sanction in exercise of the powers under clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 38-A of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') to purchase the land measuring 435.5 Sq. yards in Khasra No. 862/188/10 situated in Station Ward, Shimla 2 by M/s. Himachal Sewa Printing Press from Smt. Sarita Parshad wife of Shri Ajay Parshad for setting up printing industry. The sanction was said to be valid for 180 days from the date of issue and subject to the following conditions :

(3.) Thereafter under sale deed dated 3-1-1990, the 6th respondent purchased the property. According to the petitioners, the second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 118 of the Act contemplates that the non-agriculturist, who has been given permission by the Government shall put the land to such use for which the permission has been granted within a period of two years or further such period not exceeding one year, as may be granted by the State Government, to be counted from the day on which the deed covering the sale of the land was registered and on failure to do so, the land so purchased shall vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances. While the matter stood thus, the first petitioner and others appear to have sent a representation to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court, which was treated as C.W.P. No. 73 of 1990 against any construction for setting up of a printing press by the 6th respondent. The said writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous with liberty to the petitioners to approach this Court, if occasion arises therefor in future, on the ground that permission for putting up a printing press sought for by respondent No. 6 was refused on 3-5-1990, and the same is being challenged under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977 by means of a statutory appeal and, therefore, there is no subsisting grievance for the petitioners. The reason for such refusal seems to be that the proposed printing press was with a capacity of 60 horse power whereas not more than 3 horse power machinery can be allowed in residential use and the land use of the area is residential, whereas the proposal was to put it to industrial use, which cannot be permitted. The appeal said to have been filed by the 6th respondent also did not meet with success and came to be rejected by the Appellate Authority on 21-7-1992. In view of the above, the 6th respondent appear to have taken steps to have a residential building put up on the plot and got the plan for the construction sanctioned from the Municipal Corporation, Shimla. At that stage, writ petition No. 962/94 appears to have been filed by one Amin Chand Chauhan, the father of Ravinder Chauhan, one of the petitioners in the present petition, as a public interest litigation for putting the land to public use. On 7-11-1994, a statute quo order was said to have been passed and in view of the reply filed by the State that appropriate action has been taken under Section 118 of the Act, on 28-11-1994 and show cause notice was issued to show cause on 5-12-1994 and the said writ petition, namely, CWP No. 962/94 came to be disposed of on 21-2-1995 observing that no further action in the writ petition has been called for and that with a direction to the Collector, who has initiated proceedings to deal with further in expeditious manner and finalisation action. It may be stated at this stage that the Collector, Shimla issued a notice dated 28-11-1994, stating therein that the sale deed on obtaining permission was executed on 3-1-1990, that two years period expired and no extension was also granted to the 6th respondent and that since the 6th respondent allegedly obtained permission for construction of residential accommodation thereby contravening the orders of the Government dated 28-11-1989 and as to why the land should not be ordered to be vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. It was at this stage that 6th respondent appears to have filed a representation dated 19-12-1994 for altering and changing the purpose of utilising the land from commercial to residential one and the Government of Himachal Pradesh, in the Revenue Department accorded the sanction amending the use of the land in question for residential purpose in view of the fact that the land is situated in residential area and no Industrial Unit can be established therein. As a consequence of the above, the Collector, Shimla by his proceeding dated 7-3-1995 dropped the proceedings instituted under S. 118(1) of the Act, as noticed earlier. It is at this stage, that the petitioners have come with the present writ petition seeking for the various reliefs, referred to supra.