IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 705 of 2007. Date of decision: 25.11.2010 Jawala Parsad. …. Petitioner Versus State of H.P.& ors. ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the petitioner: Mr.G.R.Palsra, Advocate. For the respondents: Shri Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.M.S.Guleria, counsel for respondents No.3 and 4. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) This petition is directed against the order passed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, respondent No.2 whereby he dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the present petitioner and upheld the order of the Consolidation Officer. The grievance of the petitioner is only in respect of ‘Dhani Abal land’ and, therefore, the facts necessary for this purpose only are being given. The undisputed facts of the case are that Jawala Parsad, petitioner, Sh.Baman, Uttam Chand and Smt.Manorma were owners of a joint Khata. All of them 2 had 1/4th share in the joint Khata. However, they were in possession of different parts of the land. It is not disputed that Uttam and Manorma sold their share, i.e., total half share in the land to the respondents No.3 and 4 namely Hansa Devi and Sharda Devi. It is also not disputed before me that Sh.Jawala Parsad is entitled to the share of Baman and, therefore, he is entitled to half share in the land. From the material on record, it is apparent that prior to consolidation, Khasra No.588 measuring 0-7-0 bighas and Khasra No.590 measuring 0-6-5 bighas being Dhani Abal land were shown to be owned by the four co- sharers but were entered in the possession of Jawala Parsad and Baman. In respect of Khasra No.645 measuring 0-17-3 bighas which was owned by all these co- sharers, Sh.Uttam was shown to be in possession thereof. Therefore, the total Dhani Abal land is 1-10-8 bighas. The petitioner claims that he was entitled to half share out of this land which would work out to 15 biswas and 4 biswansis. However, when consolidation is done, it is obvious that holdings have to be protected and prevented from fragmentation. Therefore, some allowance has to be given. This is the standard procedure in consolidation proceedings. 3 The stand of the respondents is that since Uttam was in possession of 17-3 biswas of land, his possession over the same was protected and the possession of the petitioner and Baman over 6-5 biswas in Khasra No.590 was also protected but out of Khasra No.588, 3 biswas and 10 biswansis of land was allowed to Smt.Manorma. If Manorma had given her share then why should the smallest holding of the petitioner be fragmented. Then her share should have been given out of share of Uttam. In any event, since the respondents claim both these shares of Manorma and Uttam, they cannot take advantage of fragmentation and claim that the possession of Uttam should be protected. Fragmentation of the property of the petitioner should also not take place and he should not be dispossessed of the Dhani Abal land. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I am of the considered view that Khasra No.588 measuring 0-7-0 bighas and Khasra No.590 measuring 0-6-5 bighas total 13 biswas and 5 biswansis should go to the petitioner and Khasra No.545 measuring 0-17-3 biswas should remain intact and should go to the respondents. This is the only modification, I propose to make. 4 The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms and the matter is remanded back to the consolidation/settlement officer who shall ensure that the respondents are compensated for the land which has now been awarded to the petitioner. No order as to costs. November 25, 2010 (Deepak Gupta) (m) Judge