IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No. 16/2004 Reserved on: 20.11.2008 Decided on:5.5. 2009 Shakti Chand and others. …Appellants. Versus Jindu Ram and others. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagdish Bhalla, C.J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1.No For the Appellants : Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma and Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 45. Mr. R.K. Bawa. Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. for respondents No. 46 to 48. Rajiv Sharma, J. This Letters Patent Appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent Act has been filed against the judgment dated 28.11.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 1651/1996. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that a notification under section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 (hereinafter 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 referred to as ‘the Act’) was published in the year 1984. The consolidation scheme was published under section 22 of the Act. No one has availed the remedy under section 31 of the Act, however, a writ petition being CWP No. 334 of 1988 was filed by one Sh. Birbal Singh and 25 others assailing the consolidation proceedings. The writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 26.7.1990. One Sh. Shakti Chand, who was petitioner No.2 in CWP No. 334 of 1988 filed an application dated 17.3.1994 before the Director (Consolidation). The Director (Consolidation) asked for a detailed report from the Settlement Officer (CH) Hamirpur with regard to the fact whether the possession of the land has been exchanged or not. The Settlement Officer reported to the effect that the possession of the right holders stood exchanged only in the revenue record and that actual possession at the spot has not been exchanged. The State Government on 20.6.1996 revoked the work of consolidation carried out and finalized and granted sanction for fresh consolidation work. The respondents approached this Court by way of CWP No. 1651 of 1996 assailing the decision of the State Government dated 20.6.1996. It was primarily contended by the respondents that the State has no jurisdiction to revoke the scheme which stood finally confirmed. They have further pleaded that the right holders after the finalization of the scheme were put into actual possession of their respective lands according to the approved scheme. The stand of the present appellants was that they were not satisfied with the consolidation proceedings and had prayed for carrying out the consolidation proceedings afresh. They, inter alia, pleaded before the learned Single Judge that the actual possession had not been delivered according to the scheme and only revenue entries were changed. In other words they have supported the decision of the State Government. The learned Single 3 Judge allowed the petition on 28.11.2003. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 28.11.2003. Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate has strenuously argued that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is not sustainable. He also contended that the learned Single Judge has come to a wrong conclusion that the scheme could only be revoked by the authority, who has confirmed it i.e. Settlement Officer. He lastly contended that the State Government has taken the decision dated 20.6.1996 on the basis of the report furnished by the Settlement Office to the Director (Consolidation). Mr. R.K. Bawa, learned Advocate General and Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Advocate have supported the judgment dated 28.11.1996 of the learned Single Judge. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record produced by the State carefully. What emerges from the pleadings of the parties is that the consolidation proceedings were carried out in the revenue Estate in accordance with law. The consolidation scheme was finalized under section 22 of the Act. The persons were put in their respective possession. Earlier writ petition No. 334 of 1988 was dismissed by this Court preferred by Sh. Balbir Singh and 25 other villagers on 26.7.1990. It was on the basis of the application submitted by one Sh. Shakti Chand before the Director (Consolidation) that the report was called for from the Settlement Officer (CH) Hamirpur. He submitted the report to the effect that the possession of the right holders of the village stood changed only in the revenue record and actual possession on the spot has not been exchanged. The State had taken the decision on the basis of the reports furnished by the Settlement Officer and the Director (Consolidation). It is evident from the Scheme of the Act that the consolidation scheme is confirmed by the Settlement Officer. The Settlement Officer alone is 4 competent to revoke or modify the scheme under section 46 of the Act. The learned Single Judge on the conjoint reading of sections 27 and 46 of the Act has rightly recorded that power to vary or revoke the scheme under section 46 of the Act, subject to any order, that may be made by the State Government vests with the Settlement Officer. It is also evident from the stand of the State in earlier CWP No. 334 of 1988 that the scheme was finalized and the right holders were put into possession of the respective land and the revenue entries were changed. The State Government could not change the stand which it had earlier taken in CWP No. 334 of 1988. There ought to be consistency in the stand of the State Government. Certainty is one of the wholesome principles of rule of law. The very purpose of commencing the consolidation proceedings would be defeated if the schemes once finalized are varied or modified. The framing of scheme entails expenses. In the present case, the right holders have exchanged their lands and have developed the same after spending huge amount of money. The learned Single Judge has also come to a right conclusion that the earlier scheme prepared, published and confirmed under section 29 of the Act was neither modified nor revoked. Only the proceedings conducted in pursuance of such published and confirmed scheme seem to have been revoked and set aside which could not be done in exercise of the powers under section 46 of the Act. Consequently, in the view of the aforesaid reasoning, there is no merit in the Letters Patent Appeal and the same is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. (Jagdish Bhalla),C.J. 5.5. 2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*