YASHWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After conclusive pronouncement(s), up to, the Hon'ble Apex Court, being rendered, and, wherethrough(s), the initial order, rendered, on 18.11.2016, hence, under Section 163 of Himachal Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, by the learned SDO (Civil) Barsar-cum-Appellate Authroity, and, embodied in Ext. P-2, became hence affirmed, and (i) whereunder(s) the writ petitioner, for his making, the, statutory prohibited encroachment(s), upon, government land, was, debarred from contesting elections to the post of Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, Sour, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur, rather the instant writ petition becomes instituted before this Court.

(2.) Visibly, hence the instant writ petition, is, hit by the doctrine of resjudicata, (a) unless the writ petitioner efficaciously demonstrates, through, tangible evidence, existing on record, that, the earlier requisite, and, relied upon, in the afore conclusive verdicts, the apposite demarcation , as, conducted, of, the relevant disputed khasra Nos, was, invalidly made. In the afore endeavour, the, learned counsel, for, the petitioner makes, an, allusion, to, Annexure P-8, wherein echoing(s), occur, qua the settlement officer, Kangra Division, at Dharamshala, therethrough, making , a, communication, to, the Director, Land Record (i) qua, for, want of the requisite rectification, being made, in the apposite records, appertaining, to, Mohal Sour, Moja Lohdar, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur, the, underway therein(s) hence settlement proceedings, becoming de-facilitated, for, completion. The afore communication, is, also referred, in, Annexure P-6, and, wherein an alike therewith communication, hence has emanated from the Land Settlement Officer, Kangra Division at Dharamshala, to, the Principal Secretary and Finance Commissioner (Revenue). Though the afore alluded Annexures, primafacie, do, bring rather sufficient material, for, enabling the counsel for the petitioner, to contend, that, the encroachment, conducted, of, the relevant disputed khasra Nos, (ii) dehors, the apposite admission(s) made, by, the writ petitioner, and, comprised in his depositing, the, fine imposed, upon him, and, dehors his executing, a, gift deed vis- -vis, the government, rather not comprising either potent or valid admissions, (iii) given the afore admissions not condoning, the, afore legally infirm demarcation, made, of, the disputed khasra Nos, as, thereupon, an, invalid demarcation, of, the disputed khasra Nos, becoming untenably condoned, by this Court.

(3.) However, the afore submissions, made, before this Court, by the learned counsel for the writ petition, would become acceptable, only, if this Court while making, a, conclusive pronouncement(s), in, CWP No. 2995 of 2016, had, remained un-seized, of, the afore material or the afore material was not placed, on record, of, the afore writ petitions. However, a perusal of the verdict rendered, by this Court, especially, in, paragraphs 19 and 20 thereof, paras whereof are extracted hereinafter: