IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA C.W.P. No. 764/2010 Date of decision: 26. 5. 2010 Baldev Singh and others …. Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?No For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. R.K Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General, for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 6 Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition has been filed with the following prayer: (a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to make correct entry in revenue record regarding canceling the path shown wrongly in khasra No. 633/1,633/2 & 638/1. or during the pendency of this writ petition further proceeding may kindly be stayed. - 2 - 2. It is seen that the matter in dispute was considered by the Director Consolidation of Holdings leading to Annexure P4 order. The operative part of the order reads as follows:- “The perusal of the record as well as the photocopy of the 2nd order of the Settlement officer (CH) Hamirpur dated 14.9.1998 shows that S/Sh. Tota Ram and Meta Ral sons of Shibu Ram were parties in the same. Moreover, Smt. Jamna Devi widow and Baldev Singh, Mohinder Singh, Ved Parkash, Surinder Kumar, Joginder Singh sons and Bimla Devi, Sheela Devi daugheters of Nikku, Smt. Sakuntla Devi, Manmohan Singh, Falura Devi and so many other right holders were also affected with the creation of this path. But they have not been made as necessary party in this revision petition by the petitioners. Without hearing all the necessary parties it is not possible to decide the objections of the petitioners correctly/properly. The petitioners are advised to file fresh revision petition on the same cause of action, if they so desired, after incorporating all the affected right-holders as necessary parties. They are also advised to file the certified copy of the orders dated 15.7.1995 (1st order) and 14.9.1998 (2nd order) passed in case No. 111/94 by the Settlement Officer (CH) Hamirpur, vide which the path has been created in the revenue record, with the revision petition which they may file. The present revision petition stands disposed off accordingly. The stay granted on 23.12.2003 is hereby vacated.” 3. Therefore, it is for the petitioners to approach the very same authority after curing the defects pointed out in the order. In the above circumstances, we dispose of the petition as follows:- - 3 - (i) In case the petitioners approach the Consolidation Officer within three weeks from today, the same shall be treated to have been filed in time. Thereafter second respondent shall dispose of the same within another three months. (ii) We make it clear that in case the petitioners do not approach the Consolidation Officer, as above, the petitioners shall not be entitled to approach the Consolidation Officer thereafter. Interim order to continue till order is passed as above, by the Consolidation Officer. The petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice (Justice Surinder Singh), May 26, 2010 Judge (cm)