WRIT PETITION 2532 of 2012 on 16 October 1987

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

CWP No. 2532 of 2012

Date of Decision 2[nd] May, 2013

________________________________________________________

Prostham Lal and others ….Petitioners Versus State o H.P. and others ….Respondents

….Petitioners

________________________________________________________

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Whether approved for reporting?[1] No.

______________________________________________________________

For the Petitioners: Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: Mr. B.S. Parmar, Additional Advocate General, Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Kush Sharma, and Mr. Vikram Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondent No.4: Mr. H.S. Rana, Advocate.

_____________________________________________________________

Dev Darshan Sud, J.(oral)

The impugned order challenged has not been placed on record with the writ petition and in view of this fact we cannot grant relief to the petitioner as prayed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that rights of the petitioners were the subject matter of civil suit No. 51 of 1987 decided by the learned Sub Judge (II), Una on 16.10.1987 and that in these circumstances, no proceedings under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act could be initiated, as the statutory authority(s) has no jurisdiction 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

to proceed in the matter. This point is for consideration by the adjudicatory authority in the revenue proceedings. If the judgment of the Civil Court has attained finality, it has to be considered by the revenue authorities in the pending proceedings. We express no view on this issue.

3. Learned counsel has also brought to our notice order dated 23.11.2011 which has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Una restraining the petitioners from transferring the suit land in any manner till the disposal of the case pending before the Deputy Commissioner. It will be open to the petitioners to challenge this order in accordance with law if permissible including urging the issue that civil suit conclusively determined the title of the parties, which contention shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. We cannot exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in interim proceedings which culminated on 23.11.2011. We make it clear that we do not pronounce on the merits of the respective rights of the parties. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. We would expect that the Deputy Commissioner will adjudicate the case as expeditiously as possible.

(Dev Darshan Sud), Judge

May 02, 2013ms.

(Dharam Chand Chaudhary) Judge