Real Estate an Appropriate Forum for Khasra Numbers and Mesne Profit: High Court of Shimla

 Hig h C o urt of H.P on 17 03 HCHP IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLALPA No. 1315.Reserved on: 4 th March 2021.Decided on : 10 th March 2021.Jagdish Ram & Ors....Petitioners. VersusState of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents.Coram:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur Judge.The Hon ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma Judge.Whether approved for reporting 1 Yes.For the Petitioner:Mr. R.K. Sharma Senior Advocatewith Ms. Vidushi Sharma Advocate.For Respondents No. 1 to 3:Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar Mr.Narender Guleria Mr. Hemant Vaidand Mr. Ashwani Sharma Addl.A.Gs.With Mr. Kunal Thakur Ms. SvaneelJaswal and Mr. Vikrant Chandel Dy.A. Gs.For Respondent No.4:Mr. G.D. Verma Senior Advocate withMr.B.C. Verma Advocate. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment Hig h C o urt of H.P on 17 03 HCHP Per Sureshwar Thakur Judge.The writ petitioner respondent No.4 herein in CWPNo. 7094 claimed the making of the hereinafter extractedmandamus upon the respondents: a) Directing respondents No.1 to 3 to completethe consolidation proceedings within a time boundperiod not exceeding 6 months. b)Directing the respondents to put thepetitioner in possession of his holdings prior to theconsolidation proceedings in 1982 till and so long asthe new proceedings under the Act are not finalizedand further directing the respondents to pay to thepetitioner compensation for the deprivation of hisproperty for the period he remained out ofpossession till the date of possession is restored tohim. c)Directing the Respondents to produce untothis Hon ble Court the entire record relating to theconsolidation proceedings so that justice is done.d) Any other writ order or direction as may bedeemed just and proper in the facts andcircumstances of the case may be passed in favour ofthe petitioner and against the respondents.”…2… Hig h C o urt of H.P on 17 03 HCHP 2.Through the impugned verdict made upon CWP No.7094 by the learned Single Judge the latter proceeded to after accepting the proposals made in sub clausesandofparagraph No. 5 by the Director Consolidation of Holding H.P. in an affidavit of 22nd December 2014 and as became swornby the latter officer and as became tendered before the Court in compliance to an order of 26.10.2004 hence make aconclusion that the writ petitioner respondent No.4 herein becoming unlawfully deprived of possession of the writproperty inasmuch as during consolidation proceedings hispossession upon the writ property became reduced fromhitherto 42.3 kanals to 23.16 kanals and also his concomitantphysical possession upon the writ property became reduced (i) wherethrough theapposite scheme of consolidation as prepared vis a vis thewrit kahsra numbers became rescinded and a direction waspronounced for rather with the apposite consensus ad idem ofall the right holder concerned in the contentious writ khasra…4… Hig h C o urt of H.P on 17 03 HCHP numbers hence a fresh consolidation scheme being preparedand thereafter consolidation operations under the aforenomenclatured statute being embarked upon.4.Necessarily the valid embarking upon or recoursingto the statutory mandate enshrined in the Act is comprised inthe relevant khasra numbers being free from any civil litigation appertaining to the title of the landowners concerned in and upon apposite khasra numbers whereons the exercising(s) ofjurisdiction under the Act is strived to be recoursed.Contrarily if there is an acid contest vis a vis validassumption(s) thereon of title by any or all the landownersconcerned thereupon uptil the dispute appertaining to thevalidity of title upon the khasra numbers concerned of orany of the land owners concerned becomes enjoined to becompletely rested by a conclusive and binding decree becoming made upon the apposite civil action by the Civil Courtconcerned and obviously thereupto the recoursing to themandate of the Act becomes completely forbidden.…5… Hig h C o urt of H.P on 17 03 HCHP 5.Be that as it may the afore impediments workingagainst the complete valid holdings of consolidationproceedings in the Mohal concerned whereons the writ khasranumbers are located is vociferously urged by the co respondents arrayed as respondents No.4 to 10 in the writpetition No. 7094 in their apposite reply(ies) wherein they asserted that they did rather acquire title to the suitproperty through adverse possession. Moreover an aliketherewith contention is reared in the LPA and the afore factumhas remained undenied by the writ petitioner respondent No.4herein. Untrovertedly when hence the apposite therewith RSANo. 3615 is subjudice before this Court and the lisborne therein appertains to the validity of canvassing(s) of theafore acquisition of title qua the suit khasra numbers hence bythe appellants herein and also an averment is raisedtherein vis a vis the appellants rather making interference(s) inthe ownership and possession of the writ petitioner arrayed asrespondent No.4 in the extant LPA upon hence vis a vis writ…6… Hig h C o urt of H.P on 17 03 HCHP khasra number or suit khasra numbers as the case may be and also the latter causing obstruction in the furtherprogression(s) of the partition proceedings hence subjudicebefore the Assistant Collector 1st Grade concerned.6.In aftermath even if the judgment and decreerendered by the Civil Court and though purportedlyappertaining to the writ khasra numbers or the suit kahsranumbers and also if in pursuance thereto mutations quatherewith became attested besides even if as alluded in theverdict of the learned Single Judge hence symbolic and physicalpossession of the writ khasra numbers or suit khasra numbers stood delivered to the writ petitioner arrayed as co respondentNo.4 in the LPA thereupon uptill a decision both final andconclusive becomes recorded upon RSA No. 3615 wherein also a purportedly alike dispute becomes encapsulated with respect to suit khasra numbers or the writ khasra numbersand or appertains to the validity of acquisition of titlethereons respectively by the appellants and or by the writ…7… Hig h C o urt of H.P on 17 03 HCHP petitioner arrayed as co respondent No.4 in the extant LPA …9… 

Summary: The RSA was the appropriate forum, for determining the factum, of, legality or illegality of assumption of possession, upon, writ khasra numbers, and for determining whether during pendency thereof either status quo was to be maintained or whether possession subject, to, payment of mesne profit, was to be delivered. This remarkable judgement was passed by Shimla High Court in the case of Jagdish Ram &amp; Ors. V. State of H.P. &amp; Ors [LPA No. 135 of 2015] by The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur and The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma The Mandamus writ petition was filed directing respondents No.1 to 3 to complete the consolidation proceedings within a time bound period not exceeding 6 months, put the petitioner in possession of his holdings prior to the consolidation proceedings and directing the respondents to pay to the petitioner compensation for the deprivation of his property for the period he remained out of possession. The writ petitioner herein was unlawfully deprived of possession of the writ property during consolidation proceedings his possession, upon, the writ property, became reduced from hitherto 42.3 kanals to 23.16 kanals, and, also his concomitant physical possession, upon, the writ property became reduced. Furthermore, there was also a reference in the impugned verdict to a judgment pronounced by the Civil Court qua land measuring 42.6 kanals, and, the finalization of the freshly instituted consolidation proceedings, the writ petitioner be put in physical possession of the writ property. The correspondents, asserted that they did rather acquire title to the suit property through adverse possession. The court was in the opinioned that, “the judgment, rendered by the Civil Court, and, though purportedly appertaining to the writ khasra numbers or the suit khasra numbers, alluded in the verdict of the learned Single Judge, hence symbolic and physical possession, of the writ khasra numbers, or suit khasra numbers, stood delivered, to the writ petitioner arrayed as co-respondent No.4 in the LPA, (i) thereupon, up till a decision dispute becomes encapsulated, with respect to suit khasra numbers or the writ khasra numbers, (ii) appertains to the validity of acquisition, of, title thereon, respectively by the appellants, and/or by the writ petitioner, arrayed as co-respondent No.4, in the extant LPA” The court was of the view that, “In summa, the impugned verdict is recalled. Also since unclouded, and, uncontested title, upon, the apposite khasra numbers, is, the indispensable norm for hence thereon , consolidation proceedings becoming validly recourse, thereupon, hence, till a final and conclusive adjudication, is, made upon RSA No. 365 of 2015, thereupon the respondents concerned, may not subject, the writ khasra numbers, and, suit khasra numbers to consolidation operations.”