IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 363 of 2004. Judgment reserved on:8.12.2010 Date of Decision: 14.12.2010 Dilbag Singh and others ..Petitioners. Versus. Nanak Chand and another .. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? Yes For the Petitioner(s): Mr.Subhash Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr.H.K. Bhardwaj, counsel for R-1. Mr.Vivek Thakur, Addl.A.G. for R-2. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral). 1. By means of this Petition, the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 24.6.2004 passed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings allowing the Revision Petition filed by respondent No.1 herein setting aside, the order dated 10.7.2003 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, be set aside. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Consolidation proceedings took place in village Tahliwal Nichla, Mauza Nangal Kalan, Sub Tehsil - 2 - Haroli, Tehsil and District Una during the year 1984-85. On 2.12.2002 i.e. almost 18 years after the consolidation proceedings had taken place the petitioner filed an application to the Consolidation Officer wherein he stated that some land belonging to him is situate on the Santokhgarh Polian Road opposite the petrol pump. According to him, this land was reserved for him and was being cultivated by him at the spot but somehow in the revenue record it was entered in the name of the respondent. Therefore, he prayed that after inquiry, entries be corrected in his favour. An endorsement was made on this application that the same has been received after expiry of period of limitation which expired on 7.12.2002. However, it is not stated as to when exactly this application was received in the office. Be that as it may, it appears that on 7.7.2003 some inquiry was carried out by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, according to whom, the khasra Nos.277-278/1 measuring 0.05.85 sq. mts. was being cultivated by the petitioner and the same was ordered to be - 3 - recorded in his name. Interestingly, on 10.7.2003 i.e. only after three days of this report, the Assistant Consolidation Officer passed an order in favour of the petitioner. 3. The respondent No.1 filed a petition before the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, raising various points. One of the points raised was that in fact in the year 1984, the applicant had applied for separation of his share and he had been granted a separate khata and therefore the land in question had never been granted to him. The Director, Consolidation of Holdings, came to the conclusion that the Consolidation Officer had passed the order without following the rules and in total violation of the Rules of Natural Justice and accordingly set aside the same. This order is under challenge in this Court. 4. I have heard Sh.Subhash Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sh.H.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sh.Vivek Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for the State. - 4 - 5. It is apparent that on 31.1.1984, the petitioner herein had filed an application with the Assistant Consolidation Officer praying that his khata may be separated from the other land owners and his statement in this regard was also recorded on 8.8.1984. Thereafter, separate land was allotted to the petitioner and he obviously remained in possession of the said land. 6. After 18 years i.e. in the year 2002, the petitioner filed an application stating that the land opposite the petrol pump on Santokhgarh Polian Road was reserved for him and he is in possession of the same. No document has been placed on record to show that this land was ever reserved for him. He also claimed to be in possession of the land and the Assistant Consolidation Officer vide his report dated 7.7.2003, after spot inspection, held that a portion of the said land was in possession of the petitioner herein. It would be pertinent to mention that no notice of the spot inspection was given to respondent No.1 who was duly recorded as owner in possession of the land. I fail to understand how the Assistant - 5 - Consolidation Officer could have inspected the spot without giving any opportunity to the affected party. 7. Another surprising aspect of the matter is that the Assistant Consolidation Officer submitted his report on 7.7.2003 and the Consolidation Officer passed an order on 10.7.2003. Again such order was passed without issuing any notice to respondent No.1. On 7.7.2003 the spot inspection was carried out in Mohal Nichla Tahliwal, Sub Tehsil Haroli, District Una. There is no explanation as to how within 3 days i.e. 10.7.2003 the file was put up and orders obtained on the same. It clearly shows that somebody in the office of the Consolidation Officer/Assistant Consolidation Officer was going out of his way to help the petitioner. 8. Another disturbing aspect of the matter is that the Consolidation Officer did not take notice of the fact that after the first phase of consolidation proceedings had been completed in the area, settlement had taken place in the village. Therefore, any change in the revenue record - 6 - had to be made by the settlement authorities and not by the Consolidation Officer. It is more than apparent that the petitioner having realized that the value of the land had gone up after construction of the road wanted to grab the same and managed to obtain an order in his favour. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in the petition which is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.5000/-. December 14, 2010. (Deepak Gupta), J. PV