ROSHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dated 6.9.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Shimla Division, in Revenue appeal No. 301/2005.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that the Revenue field staff of Solan tehsil had reported through prescribed channel that as per the records, S/Shri Roshan Lal and Sat Raj Singh (first petitioner and proforma respondent respectively) were owners of a piece of land comprised in Khasra No. 744/238 measuring 1 -15 bighas in mauza Barog, Tehsil and District Solan but on the spot, a part of this land described as khasra No. 744/238/2 measuring 0 -3 Bighas had been purchased by one Shri Prit Pal Singh Bindra who was a non -agriculturist without the permission of the Himachal Pradesh Government in violation of Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. Shri Prit Pal Singh was also reported to have constructed a two -storeyed building thereon. The Collector, Solan district then issued a show cause notice to the abovesaid persons asking them to show cause why the said 3 biswas alongwith building should not be confiscated by the State of H.P. After carrying out proceedings, the Collector ordered the confiscated of the land alongwith building to the respondent -State of H.P. free from all encumbrances. The present petitioners thereafter appealed to the Commissioner, Shimla Division, who vide order dated 6.9.2008 has dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision.

(3.) THE petitioners have further alleged that the Commissioner has not properly appreciated the judgments/decrees of civil courts and in particular that of the Senior Sub Judge, Solan dated 24.8.1999 and of the District Judge, Solan dated 5.9.2000 which are biding on Revenue Courts. They have also cited a decision of the Honble High Court of H.P. and also of my predecessors. The petitioners have alleged that the Commissioner has held that the provisions of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act were applicable to the constructed area whereas the Honble High Court has clearly and categorically held that a constructed portion even in a rural area will not fall within the definition of ˜land if it is not subservient to agriculture. The petitioners have mentioned of certain cases decided by Collector, Solan District where no violation of Section 118 of the Tenancy and Land Reforms Act was found, based on the view that the section does not apply to a constructed area which is not subservient to agriculture. They have prayed that the order of the Commissioner be set aside and quashed by accepting this revision with costs and proceedings against the petitioners may be ordered to be dropped in the interest of justice and equity.