IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 814 of 2011 Date of Decision: 24th May, 2011 Kamla Devi and others Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and another Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J.. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioners: Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.R.K.Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K.Verma, Dy. A.G. for respondent No.1 Mr. K.S.Banyal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the impugned order (Annexure P-3), passed by respondent No.1 may kindly be quashed and set aside with consequential relief that 12 marlas of land may be allotted to the petitioners out of Khasra Nos. 137 and 186 instead Khasra No. 421. Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 (ii) To produce the entire record of the case before this Hon’ble Court. (iii)Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioners.” 2. Annexure P-3 is the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division, Mandi in exercise of his powers under Section 54 of the H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. There is no dispute that the land in question is under the ownership of the petitioners and the private respondent. There is also no dispute that proceedings under the Act were initiated by private parties. There is also no dispute with regard to the extent of their share holdings in the land. Private parties had desired that proceedings under the Act be initiated. The object and purpose of the Act i.e. consolidation of land was sought to be achieved. The Divisional Commissioner himself had asked the Assistant Consolidation Officer to inspect the spot personally and suggest the mode of partition on equitable basis. Undisputedly all concerned were associated by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on 3 the spot and an endeavour was also made to have the matter resolved amicably. However, petitioners herein did not agree as they had wanted to take the land adjoining to the Well of the private respondent, which for practicable reason was not found to be feasible on the spot by the Officer. Perusal of the report submitted by the Officer evidences the fact that the suggestions given by the petitioners herein are not only impracticable but in fact would result into inequitable conditions and circumstances. One would be a source of permanent interference in the land of another. 3. Taking into account the entire material placed on record by the parties as also the report, the Divisional Commissioner has passed the impugned order by balancing the equities in consolidating the land which can be used in the best possible, optimum and productive manner. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any illegality and infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice May 24, 2011 (Justice Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.