2010 Supreme(SC) 1123

2010 (8) Supreme 33
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. V. Raveendran and A. K. Patnaik, JJ.
Harbhajan Singh — Appellant
versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5767 of 2002
Decided on : 23-11-2010

Headnote:Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971- Section 14 - Writ Petition filed by appellant on ground that notification issued under Section 16(1) of Act by State Government cancelling declaration under Section 14 of Act was arbitrary, unreasonable and vitiated by mala fide inasmuch as it was issued after 13 years from declaration under Section 14 of the Act in 1986 and after consolidation proceedings were finalized, completed and even implemented - High Court held that notification under Section 16(1) of the Act cancelling declaration under Section 14 of the Act was issued by State Government in larger public interest and was also issued before the closure of the consolidation operation under Section 15(1) of the Act and was not arbitrary and unreasonable-Appeal-Held it is only when persons entitled to possession of holdings under the Act have been delivered possession of holdings that they acquire rights, title and interest in new holding allotted to them and consolidation scheme in the area is deemed to have come into force- Till such possession of the allotted land under consolidation scheme is delivered to allottees and consolidation scheme is deemed to come into force, State Government has power under Section 16(1) of the Act to cancel the declaration under Section 14(1) of Act- Since the appellant had not entered into possession of holdings allotted to appellant and Damtal Mandir had also not entered into possession of holdings allotted to Mandir pursuant to orders passed by Additional Director (Consolidation) and Consolidation Officer and since consolidation scheme had not come into force in the Revenue Estate Damtal, State Government had power under Section 16(1) of the Act to cancel the declaration under Section 14(1) of Act-Appeal dismissed. (Paras 12 to 14)

        Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971- Section 14 - Writ Petition filed by appellant on ground that notification issued under Section 16(1) of Act by State Government cancelling declaration under Section 14 of Act was arbitrary, unreasonable and vitiated by mala fide inasmuch as it was issued after 13 years from declaration under Section 14 of the Act in 1986 and after consolidation proceedings were finalized, completed and even implemented - Dismissed by High Court -Appeal –Plea of appellant that State Government was bound to follow principles of natural justice before issuing the notification under Section 16(1) of Act cancelling declaration under Section 14(1) of Act in respect of Revenue Estate Damtal-Held State Government can issue a notification under Section 16(1) of Act cancelling declaration under Section 14(1) of the Act in respect of any area at any time before the persons entitled to possession of holdings under the Act have entered into possession of holdings allotted to them-Since before the persons enter into possession of the holdings allotted to them,they do not acquire any right, title and interest in the holdings allotted to them and they do not lose in any manner their rights, title and interest in their original holdings, their rights are not affected by the issuance of a notification under Section 16(1) of the Act- A notification under Section 16(1) of the Act issued by the State Government before delivery of possession of allotted holdings to persons has no civil consequences and therefore State Government was not required to follow principles of natural justice before issuing such a notification (Para 16)

        Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971- Section 14 - Writ Petition filed by appellant on ground that notification issued under Section 16(1) of Act by State Government cancelling declaration under Section 14 of Act was arbitrary, unreasonable and vitiated by mala fide inasmuch as it was issued after 13 years from declaration under Section 14 of the Act in 1986 and after consolidation proceedings were finalized, completed and even implemented - High Court held that notification under Section 16(1) of the Act cancelling declaration under Section 14 of the Act was issued by State Government in larger public interest and was also issued before the closure of the consolidation operation under Section 15(1) of the Act and was not arbitrary and unreasonable-Appeal -Where after a declaration is made under Section 14(1) of the Act, State Government finds that interest of general public and purposes of better cultivation do not warrant the consolidation operation to continue in a particular area, it can cancel the declaration made under Section 14(1) of the Act by issuing a notification under Section 16(1) of the Act and such cancellation of declaration will not be extraneous to the object of the Act- In the instant case, report of Deputy Commissioner was clear that interest of general public and better cultivation of land would not be achieved by continuing the consolidation operation- The dominant purpose for issuing a notification under Section 16(1) of the Act was, hence, not extraneous but in accord with the objects of the Act- High Court was, hence, right in coming to conclusion that notification issued by State Government under Section 16(1) of the Act in relation to Revenue Estate Damtal was legal and valid-Appeal having no merit dismissed (Paras 18, 19)

       Facts of the Case :

        Present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Civil Writ Petition filed by appellant. Writ Petition was filed by appellant on ground that notification issued under Section 16(1) of Act by State Government cancelling declaration under Section 14 of Act was arbitrary, unreasonable and vitiated by mala fide inasmuch as it was issued after 13 years from declaration under Section 14 of the Act in 1986 and after consolidation proceedings were finalized, completed and even implemented.

       Findings of the Court :

        It is only when persons entitled to possession of holdings under the Act have been delivered possession of holdings that they acquire rights, title and interest in new holding allotted to them and consolidation scheme in the area is deemed to have come into force. Till such possession of the allotted land under consolidation scheme is delivered to allottees and consolidation scheme is deemed to come into force, State Government has power under Section 16(1) of the Act to cancel the declaration under Section 14(1) of Act. Instantly Additional Director (Consolidation) by his order appeared to have decided on the valuation of the land of parties and the areas of land to be allotted to appellant and to Damtal Mandir and Consolidation Officer had also implemented the order of Additional Director by his order and made mutation entries relating to the land. However no material was produced by appellant to show that possession of land allotted to appellant was given to appellant in accordance with the statutory provisions in Section 32 of the Act and Rule 18 of Rules. Since the appellant had not entered into possession of holdings allotted to appellant and Damtal Mandir had also not entered into possession of holdings allotted to Mandir pursuant to orders passed by Additional Director (Consolidation) and Consolidation Officer and since consolidation scheme had not come into force in the Revenue Estate Damtal, State Government had power under Section 16(1) of the Act to cancel the declaration under Section 14(1) of Act. Appeal having no merit was Dismissed.

       Result : Appeal Dismissed.