BACHITTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A predecessor of mine had decided Revision Petition No. 227/95 on 12.7.2006. However the petitioners were not satisfied and had approached the Honble High Court of H.P. in CWP No. 1029/06 titled Ravinder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. The Honble High Court vide orders dated 7.11.2008 had directed as under : - The petitioner had relied upon the case titled Kashmir Singh v. Smt. Balwant Devi and others, 1992(1) S.L.J. 718 in support of his case before the learned Financial Commissioner. However, the learned Financial Commissioner has relied upon the order rendered in Revenue Petition No. 5 of 1991, decided on 7.11.1991 titled The State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shri Brijender Singh, reported in 1992 PLJ 153 : 1992(1) Cur.L.J. 707. It is not disputed by the parties against the order dated 7.11.1991, writ petition bearing No. 96./92 was filed before this Court. The writ petition was allowed by this Court on 23.6.1997. The respondent -State had preferred Special Leave Petition before the Honble Supreme Court on 22.4.2004 (State of H.P. and others v. Rajkumar Brijender Singh and others, 2004(10) Supreme Court Cases 585 : 2004(Suppl.) Cur.L.J. (H.P.) S.C. 114. Since the learned Financial Commissioner has taken into consideration the case The State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shri Brijender Singh while deciding the revision petition, which has been set aside by the Honble Supreme Court, as noticed earlier, it is a fit case where the matter is required to be remanded back to the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla to decide the it afresh between the parties on the basis of the order passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) in Kashmir Singh v. Smt. Balwant Devi and others, reported in 1992(1) SLJ 718. The learned Financial Commissioner is directed to decide the matter within three months from today. The parties are directed to make themselves available before the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Shimla on 19.11.2008. - According the matter came up. The records of the courts below were therefore requisitioned and counsel for the parties were heard.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that the Land Ceiling Collector, Una sub -division had vide an order dated 14.1.1975 decided the case of Shri Bachittar Singh, father of the present petitioners under the H.P. Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1972. Dissatisfied, Shri Bachittar Singh had filed an application for review of the said order which was however rejected. Later on the Collector took up the matter again suo moto and sought the permission of the Commissioner, Kangra Division to review the earlier orders on the ground that more land belonging to the family had been reported and therefore the case had to be reviewed for calculating the permissible area. Upon receipt of permission, the Collector decided the matter afresh vide orders dated 20.11.1980 but his orders were set aside by the Commissioner vide orders dated 29.6.1982. Shri Bachittar Singh had filed an appeal against the Commissioners orders and a predecessor of mine decided the same on 6.11.1987 setting aside the Commissioners orders and remanded the matter back to the Collector for decision afresh. The Collector thereafter decided the matter on 19.2.1992 keeping in view the observation of that predecessor of mine that ..more area should have been declared as surplus by giving two units to Shri Bachittar Singh as provided under Section 4(4) of the Act ibid. -

(3.) AGGRIEVED by this order, the present petitioners, who are the successors in interest of Shri Bachittar Singh, came in appeal before this Court in Revision Petition No. 227 of 1995. My learned predecessor had dismissed the revision on 12.7.2006 finding it to be devoid of merits. This led to the aforesaid CWP in the Honble High Court of H.P. as per whose orders this matter is being decided afresh.