IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1305 of 2009 Date of decision : December 7, 2010 Sohan Lal …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Petitioner’s father Hakam Ram had been given, on lease, six bigha land in a village in Nalagarh Tehsil of Solan District, in the year 1970. The land was earlier part of Shamlat land of the village. It vested in the Panchayat, under Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. 2. In the year 1972, after the merger of Nalagarh area of erstwhile State of Punjab in the Himachal Pradesh Union Territory and after the conferment of Statehood on Himachal Pradesh Union Territory, in the year 1971, an Act, known as Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands (Vesting and Utilization) Act, 1972, was passed, by virtue of which all the common lands, including the village common lands, which had vested in the Panchayat, in the area, earlier forming part of erstwhile State of Punjab, vested in the State. The Act provided for examination of leases created Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… by the Panchayats for the purpose of their regularisation by the District Collectors. Petitioner’s father’s lease was considered by the District Collector, Solan and regularised vide order dated 23rd April, 1976, copy Annexure P-1. 3. On 10th August, 2007, Government of Himachal Pradesh communicated a decision to all the Divisional Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners to confer proprietary rights, in respect of lands leased out by the Panchayats to the villagers, under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, on payment of lease money, to be worked out in accordance with the formula given in the letter itself. The communication said that the maximum area, in respect of which proprietary rights were to be conferred, was to be restricted to five bigha. Petitioner, who had stepped into the shoes of his father, by that time, surrendered one bigha area, out of six bigha area, leased out to his father and applied to the Sub Divisional Collector, vide application Annexure P-5 (dated 8th November, 2007), for conferment of proprietary rights. He also deposited the lease money, calculated in accordance with the formula given in the aforesaid letter dated 10th August, 2007, copy Annexure P-3. No action on his application has been taken so far. So, he has come to this Court, seeking a direction to the respondents to decide his application, for conferment of proprietary rights, in respect of five bigha land, out of six bigha leased land. …3… 4. In the reply, aforesaid facts are not disputed. However, it is alleged that some clarification has been sought from the Government by the Sub Divisional Collector and because that clarification is still awaited, petitioner’s application is pending. 5. Reply with regard to the clarification is too vague to convey any meaning. What kind of clarification has been sought is not specified in the reply. Government has not recalled the decision conveyed vide letter dated 10th August, 2007, Annexure P-3. Also, there is no communication from the Government, staying the decision contained in Annexure P-3, pending response to the “clarification”. In view of the abovestated position, writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the application, copy Annexure P-5, of the petitioner, within three months, in accordance with Annexure P-3. December 7, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J