Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/177/2001 of GURDASS RAM Vs DIR.CONSOLIDATION on 30 December 2011
COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 177 of 2001-C Date of decision: 30.12.2011. Gurdass Ram, son of Sh. Prem Chand, Res. of Vill. Dussara, Tehsil Amb, Distt. Una (H.P.) Petitioner Versus 1. Director, Consolidation of Holdings, H.P., SHIMLA, H.P. 2a. Daulat Ram} All sons of 2b. Dharam Pal}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 177 of 2001-C
Date of decision: 30.12.2011.
Gurdass Ram, son of Sh. Prem Chand, Res. of Vill. Dussara, Tehsil Amb, Distt. Una (H.P.)
Petitioner
Versus
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Director, Consolidation of Holdings, H.P., SHIMLA, H.P.SHIMLA, H.P.
2a. Daulat Ram} All sons of
2b. Dharam Pal} Kishan Chand.
2c. Satpal }
3. Raj Kumar, s/o Shri Rattan Chand
4. Surinder Kumar, s/o Shri Rattan Chand
5. Des Raj, son of Shri Bhagat Ram
6. Sumesh Kumar, son of Shri Parkash Chand
7. Des Raj, son of Sh. Bhagata
8. Kishan Dev, son of Shri Amin Chand
9. Pawan Kumar, son of Shri Mangat Ram
10. Kamal Dev, son of Shri Mangar Ram
11. Diwan Chand, son of Shri Parmeshwari Dass
12. Subhash Chand, son of Shri Parmeshwari Dass
13. Onkar Nath, son of Shri Amar Nath
14. Shiv Nath, son of Shri Amar Nath
15. Satish Kumar, Shri Karam Chand
16. Kewal Singh, Shri Karam Chand
17. Rajinder Kumar, Shri Karam Chand
18. Sanjiv Kumar, Shri Karam Chand
19. Ravinder Kumar, Shri Karam Chand
20. Surinder Kumar, Shri Jagan Nath
21. Kailash Kumar, Shri Jagan Nath
22. Satish Kumar, Shri Jagan Nath
23. Mool Raj, son of Shri Raghuvir Chand
24. Sanjogta Devi, wd/o late Sh. Hari Chand 24b. Manish Kumar (Minor) S/o Late Sh. Hari Ram, through its mother Smt. Sanjogta Devi.
25. Sudershana Kumari, daughter of
26. Giatri Devi, widow of late Shri Jagan Nath.
27. Dinesh Kumar, s/o late Shri Roop Chand
28. Kishan Dev, son of Hukami Devi
29. Om Prakash, son of Hukami Devi
30. Subhash Chand, son of Hukami Devi
31. Parkasho Devi, daughter of Hukami Devi
32. Nirmla Devi, daughter of Hukami Devi
33. Shanti Devi, daughter of Hukami Devi
34. Surinderan Devi, daughter of Hukami Devi
35. Pawan Kumar, son of Shri Har Lal
36. Shyam Kumar, son of Shri Bishan Dass 37a. Shawarna Devi, wd/o Late Sh. Ashok Kumar 37b. Ram Parsad, s/o Late Sh. Ashok Kumar
37c. Bindra Devi, d/o late Sh. Ashok Kumar 37d. Rama Devi, d/o late Sh. Ashok Kumar
38. Ram Rakha, son of Masandu
39. Baldev, son of Shri Inder
40. Tarsem, son of Shri Inder
42. Onkar Chand, son of Shri Inder
Respondents 2a to 42 all residents of vill.
Dussara, Tehsil Amb, District Una (H.P.)
Respondents
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge.1Whether approved for reporting ?
For petitioner: Mr. Rajnish Manikatla,Advocate.
For respondents: Mr. A.K. Bansal., Addl. A.G. for respondent No.1.
Surinder Singh , Judge( Oral)
The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner to quash and set aside the order, dated 29.7.2007, Annexure P-3, passed by the first respondent seeking further direction to decide the revision petition, on its own merit. 2.The case of the petitioner is that in the year 1978, he had purchased 7 Marlas of land in Khasra No. 238 from one Shri Roop Chand vide a sale deed duly registered and raised the shops and house thereupon. Thereafter in the year 1980-81, the Revenue Department conducted the 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?
settlement and some new Khasra number was alloted. The petitioner had filed the civil suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction, which was decreed partly and he failed in appeal also, ultimately, his regular second appeal before the High Court was also dismissed. He had also agitated the matter under the Consolidation Act, but his grievance was not redressed, ultimately, he filed a revision petition under Section 54 of the H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971, which was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer on the ground that the petitioner was unsuccessful in the civil suit upto this Court and in his RSA No. 426/98, decided on 4.6.1999 the High Court held that the petitioner had no title over the land in dispute, which was allotted in partition during the consolidation proceedings to Roop Chand aforesaid, from whom the petitioner is alleged to have purchased the land. Thus, the petitioner was not justified in approaching the Director (Consolidation) to maintain the revision petition. 3.In fact in para No.4 of the judgment passed by the High Court in the RSA aforesaid, it is clearly held that the petitioner was not
5
entitled to a decree for permanent injunction for want of title. Therefore, in view of this clear cut finding, the revision petition was rightly dismissed. As such, relief sough cannot be granted and the writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.
December 30, 2011.
(pankaj)
(Surinder Singh), Judge.