IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.758 of 2003 Date of Decision: 6th May, 2008. Tilak Raj Chadha & Ors. …..Petitioners. versus State of H.P. & Ors. …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr Rajnish K. Lall vice Mr.K.D.Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr R.M.Bisht,Deputy A.G. for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr N.K.Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.5 to 7, 9 and 10. Deepak Gupta, Judge (Oral). This petition is directed against the order dated 22.11.2002 passed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, in case No.191/2002 whereby he has rejected the petition filed by the Education Department and the Village Proprietary Body. The brief facts giving rise to the petition are that Khasra No.4896/2489 (old) i.e. Khasra No.2155 (new) admittedly adjoins the Government High School, Gagret. The area of Gagret was brought under the H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 (hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and a 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? - 2 - Village Advisory Committee/Mashwarti Committee was constituted. This Committee reserved the open area adjoining to the school for the purposes of play ground and extension of the school building. One Shri Mast Ram, predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.6 to 10, filed objections under Section 30(2) of the Act against the allotment of this land in favour of the school. These objections were forwarded to the Settlement Officer for passing appropriate order. The Settlement Officer, rejected the objections filed by respondents No. 5 to 10. Thereafter Shri Banta Ram and others filed a petition under Section 54 of the Act before the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings. This petition was numbered as case No. 200/78. The order of the Settlement Officer/Consolidation Officer dated 19.4.1979 was set aside and the case was remanded to the Settlement Officer/Consolidation Officer for exploring the possibility of finding an alternative site for extension of the existing school building in consultation with the Consolidation Advisory Committee and other right holders of the village including the Gram Panchayat. The Settlement Officer found that on a portion of khasra No. 4896/2489 (old) a pucca structure has been constructed by the Education Department. This land was granted to the Education Department and the remaining land as well as khasra Nos. 1860 and 1862 were ordered to be included in the khata of the right holders. Aggrieved against this order, the present petitioners filed a revision petition under Section 54 which was numbered as Case No. 52/91. This petition was rejected by the Director Consolidation of holdings that the revision petition was not maintainable in view of the judgment - 3 - dated 23.7.1999 delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CMP(M) No. 639 of 1996. This order was passed on 20.1.2000, The petitioner did not challenge the order of the Additional Director of Consolidation. In the meantime, the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court holding that the revision was not maintainable in case there was provision of filing an appeal, was set aside by a Division Bench of this Court. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a fresh revision petition in September, 2007 which was numbered as 191/2002 before the Director, Consolidation of Holdings. This petition was rejected only on the ground that since the earlier revision petition being petition No. 52/91 had already been rejected on 20.1.2000, the present revision petition did not arise. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. There is no manner of doubt that the second revision was not maintainable in view of the fact that the first revision petition was dismissed as not maintainable. It may be true that the ruling relied upon while rejecting revision petition No. 52/91 was later set aside by this Court. However, since the petitioners had not challenged the order rejecting their petition as not maintainable, they could not be permitted to file a fresh petition. Therefore, the second revision petition was not maintainable. Once the earlier revision petition had been rejected as not maintainable, whether rightly or wrongly, and the order had attained finality, no fresh revision could be filed only on the ground that the judgment which was cited and relied upon had been over-ruled. We, therefore, find no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly rejected. We may however, make it clear that neither the - 4 - Director, Consolidation of Holdings nor this Court has gone into the merits of the dispute. In case there is any remedy available to the petitioners, they may avail of the same in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. May 6, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh), J. s.