IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO. 422 of 2004 Judgment reserved on:18.5.2011. Date of decision: 2.6.2011 Sunil Kumar and others ….Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. and others ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No . For the petitioners: Mr.Suneet Goel, Advocate For the respondent: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl.A.G. for respondents 1&2. Mr.Vikas Bhardwaj, counsel for respondents 4 to 8. _________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. 1. The petitioners by means of this petition have challenged the order dated 18.9.2002 whereby the Revision Petition filed by them under Section 154 of the H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971, was dismissed. 2. The undisputed facts are that consolidation proceedings took place and in such consolidation proceedings a scheme was prepared. However, the petitioners and the respondents who were co- sharers got their own land partitioned at the spot 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 not in accordance with the scheme of consolidation but by respecting the possession of the parties. On 10.4.1985, this partition was effected in the presence of all the land owners and the same was effected at the spot. All the parties stated that they did not want to get the land demarcated and accordingly passed a resolution directing that their partition be recorded in the consolidation proceedings. 3. The case of the petitioners is that though such settlement was arrived at, possession was not actually delivered at the spot. The order passed in the year 1985 was challenged in the year 1996 before the Director of Consolidation who rejected the same on the ground that there is huge delay of 11 years in filing the petition. This order was passed in the year 2002 and two years later in the year 2004 the present petition was filed. 4. I have carefully gone through the record which shows that the agreement which was arrived at between the parties clearly reflected that the parties had partitioned the land at the spot by respecting each others possession. Therefore, the question of handing over the possession did not arise. In fact the agreement indicates that nothing further was to be done. There is no 3 explanation on behalf of the petitioners as to why they kept silent for 11 years thereafter. 5. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. No costs. June 2, 2011 (Deepak Gupta) PV Judge