IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.463/2007 Reserved on: 30.4.2008 Decided on.19.5.2008 Ram Lal. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. no. For the petitioner : Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. : Mr. H.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondents No.3 to 11 Rajiv Sharma, J. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was allotted land measuring 9 kanals under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands (Vesting and Utilization) Scheme, 1975 on 30.1.1976 by the Deputy Commissioner, Una. The Najrana was deposited by him on 23.3.1976. The mutation was attested and sanctioned in his favour on 21.11.1984. His name was recorded in the column of ownership 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 in the Khatauni Istemal (Annexure P-2). The names of the petitioner and private respondents were recorded in the column of ownership of the land which resulted in reducing the area of the petitioner. The old Khasra No. 517/1 was assigned a new khasra number i.e. 332 in Missal Haquiat Istemal for the year 1986-87. He preferred a revision before the Director Consolidation of Holdings, Himachal Pradesh. The Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings dismissed the revision on 1.7.2006. Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner had strenuously argued that order dated 1.7.2006 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The learned Additional Advocate General had argued that 15/42 shares of khasra No. 517/1 measuring 3 kanals 4 marlas had already been mutated in favour of Karma son of Gokal and Babu son of Baria vide mutation No. 191 dated 3.12.1981. The mutation No. 191 was attested in order to give effect to the judgment of learned Sub Judge, Una passed in case No. 169/75 dated 10.10.1977. The learned Addl. Advocate General further contended that the revenue authorities had lost sight of mutation No.191 while attesting mutation No. 233 on 21.11.1984. Consequently, necessary corrections were carried out in mutation No.233 on 17.2.1987 resulting loss of 3 kanals 4 marlas of land to the petitioner. Mr. H.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents No.3 to 11 had strenuously argued that the land allotted to the petitioner has been cancelled by the Collector on 7.6.1990 and the present petition thus is not maintainable. He further argued 3 that the Revenue Officer could not over look the mutation No.191 dated 3.12.1981. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. What emerges from the pleadings of the parties is that the petitioner was allotted 9 kanals of land under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands (Vesting and Utilization) Scheme, 1975 on 30.1.1976. The mutation No. 233 was attested on 21.1.1984 though the Najrana was paid on 23.3.1976. It is evident from the record that while attesting mutation No.233 on 21.11.1984, the Revenue Officer has not taken into consideration mutation No.191 dated 3.12.1981 which was attested in order to give effect to the judgment and decree of the learned Sub Judge, Una dated 10.10.1977 rendered in case No. 169/75. The matter was reported by the Assistant Consolidation Officer to the Settlement Officer Consolidation of Holdings, Bilaspur seeking review of mutation No. 233. The Settlement Officer Consolidation of Holdings, Bilaspur being Collector allowed the review and Assistant Consolidation Officer exercising the powers of Assistant Collector IInd Grade carried out necessary correction in mutation No.233 on 17.12.1987. This resulted in loss of 3 kanals 4 marlas of land to the petitioner. In view of the above discussion, the order passed by the Additional Director is in conformity with law and need not be interfered with. The revenue authorities were bound to take into consideration the earlier mutation No.191 dated 3.12.1981 while attesting mutation No.233 on 21.11.1984. 4 Now, the Court has to consider whether the writ petition in the present form is maintainable once the allotment made in favour of the petitioner on 30.1.1976 has been cancelled by the Collector on 7.6.1990. Mr. H.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure R-8 dated 7.6.1990. The Collector by a speaking order has cancelled the allotment of Government land measuring 5 kanals 16 marlas being 27/42 share out of total land measuring 9 kanals bearing khasras No. 517/1. The Collector, Una had further directed that the possession of the land be taken back from the allottee. The Collector has given a specific finding that the petitioner was not at all entitled for allotment of the land under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands (Vesting and Utilization) Scheme, 1975 as well as on the basis of the report furnished by Tehsildar, Una. The order passed by the Collector, Una dated 7.6.1990 was given effect vide rapat rojnamcha dated 27.11.1990. The cancellation order dated 7.6.1990 was also given effect to in the revenue record vide mutation No. 27. Since the land allotted to the petitioner stood cancelled by the Collector, the petitioner had no locus standi to assail the order by the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings dated 1.7.2006. The petitioner has not mentioned in the entire petition that the land allotted to him stood cancelled on 7.6.1990. It is necessary for the parties to approach the Court with clean hands and place all the material facts before the Court. 5 In view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ( Rajiv Sharma), Judge May 19, 2008 *Awasthi*