Back
High Court Of Delhi
MOHAN SINGH - Appellant
Versus
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR DELHI - Respondent
Civil Writ 100 of 1967
Decided On : 04/28/1970
LAND REVENUE - Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 - Section 163 - Constitutional validity - Whether violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India - Held, No.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, stall-holders of village Pandoh, challenged the validity of notices issued by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954, directing them to demolish their stalls and vacate the sites thereunder, alleging that the section was unconstitutional and that the action was taken without affording them a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954, was not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as it did not confer any unguided discretion on the Revenue Officer to proceed or not to proceed under that section, and that the procedure prescribed under the section was not more drastic or prejudicial than the procedure for the trial of a suit.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the lands in possession of the petitioners were village site and, therefore, not subject to the provisions of Section 163? 3. Whether the lands in dispute were public property and not Government lands, and therefore, not subject to the provisions of Section 163? 4. Whether the proceedings under Section 163 were taken behind the back of the petitioners, violating the principle of natural justice?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954, does not confer any unguided discretion on the Revenue Officer to proceed or not to proceed under that section, as the intention underlying the section is that the Revenue Officer should take action under that section and should not proceed by way of suit against encroachers on Government land. 2. The lands in possession of the petitioners were not village site, as they were not located in Abadideh and did not fall within the meaning of the expression 'village site' as used in Section 5 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954. 3. The lands in dispute were Government lands and not public property, as Government property in law belongs to the Government and not to the public at large. 4. The petitioners were afforded a reasonable opportunity of presenting their cases in the proceedings under Section 163, as show cause notices had been issued to them and they had appeared before the Revenue Officer and made statements.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) THE main question, in this writ petition filed by forty-five stall-holders of village Pandoh,tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, is whether section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act (hereinafter REFERRED TO as the Himachal Act), is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The circumstances in which this question has arisen are as under :-
( 2 ) THE Deputy Commissioner, Mandi had issued notices to the petitioners to demolish their stalls and to vacate the sites thereunder as they had illegally constructed the stalls on Government lands. The petitioners filed a writ petition, challenging the validity of the notices on various grounds. One of the grounds was that Section 5 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. 1958, under which according to the petitioners the Duputy Commissioner appeatred to have initiated action against them was unconstitutional. In the return, filed on behalf of the respondents, it was stated that action against the petitioners had been initiated under section 163 of the Himachal Act, and not under Section 5 of the Punjab Premises (Eviction of unauthorised Occupants) Act. Thereupon, the petitioners put in an application, under Order 6, Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure, for amendirg their writ petition by including grounds, challenging the validity of I the action taken under section 163 and also the constitutional validity of the section itself. The application was allowed by an order of the Court dated 30th November, 1967. The allegations, in the amended writ petition, are; The Beas-Sutlej Link Project is being executed at village Pandh for the last two and a half years. A market has coma into existence at the site of the Project to cater for the needs of various workmen employed in the project. The market has been constructed on the lands which are vested in the Gram Sabha Majhwar and as such are under the control and supervision of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioners have constructed stalls on such lands. The leases of the lands to the various stall-holders were regularised by the aforesaid Gram Sabha and rent is being charged from the petitioners. The State Government or the Union of India has no right, title or interest in the. lands and has, therefore, no authority to eviet the petitioners from the lands. The notices, issued by the Deputy Commissioner to the petitioner, under section 163 of the Himachal Act, for demolition of stalls and for vacating the sites, are illegal. The lands in occupation of the petitioners are village site and the provisions of the Himachal Act are not applicable to such lands. The entire proceedings have been taken behind the back of the petitioners and are thus in violation of the principles of natural justice. The lands, in dispute, are public property and vest in the Gram Panchayat and for that reason also, section 163 of the Himachal Act is not applicable. Section 163 of the Himachal Act confers an unguided direction on the Revenue Officer to proceed or not to proceed under that section and thus enables the Revenue Officer to discriminate between persons situated in the same position and in alike circumstances, by exercising his powers under that section against some and proceeding by way of suit against others as both the remedies, under the section and by way of suit are available to the Government.
( 3 ) THE petitioner pray that a writ or order or direction be issued against the respondents prohibiting them from damolishing the stalls or otherwise dispossessing the petitioners from the lands, in dispute.
( 4 ) IN their return to the amended writ patition, the respondiats have denied that that lands, in dispute, are vested in the Gram Sabha Majhwar or that the Grain Sabha has any control or supervision over the lands or has the right to lease out the lands or realize rent The plea of the respondents is that the lands belong to the State Government and are under its management and control. It is submitted that
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
