Back
2016 Supreme(HP) 2731
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
P.S. RANA, J.
Anjana D/o. Sh. Partap Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Others - Non-petitioners
CWP No. 7064 of 2011-H
Decided On : 24-02-2016
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ajay Kumar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashishta.
For the Non-petitioners: Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Addl. A.G.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that complicated questions of fact should not be decided in writ proceedings, and an alternative efficacious remedy is available under Section 46 of H.P. Land Revenue Act 1954.
Headnote:
Amda forest Kasauli - Land Dispute - H.P. Land Revenue Act 1954, Section 46 - The court dismissed the civil writ petition and directed the petitioner to file a declaratory suit under Section 46 of H.P. Land Revenue Act 1954, stating that the complicated question of fact involved in the case cannot be decided in writ proceedings and an alternative efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 46.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to delete the illegal entry of 'Amda forest Kasauli' recorded in the land records. The land was initially recorded as 'Grazing field' and later as 'Amda forest Kasauli'. The petitioner purchased the land and sought correction of the entry, while the non-petitioners claimed that the land was demarcated as protected forest and was under the possession of the Forest Department.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disputed question of fact cannot be decided in writ proceedings and that an alternative efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 46 of H.P. Land Revenue Act 1954.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the entry of 'Amda forest Kasauli' in the land records, the ownership of the land, and the availability of alternative remedies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complicated question of fact involved in the case cannot be decided in writ proceedings and that an alternative efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 46 of H.P. Land Revenue Act 1954.
Final Decision: The civil writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to file a declaratory suit under Section 46 of H.P. Land Revenue Act 1954. No costs were awarded, and the case was disposed of.
ORDER :
P.S. Rana, J.
Present civil writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the prayer to delete the illegal and wrong entry of ‘Amda forest Kasauli’ recorded by the non-petitioners in the record of rights relating to land comprised in Khata No.147 Khatauni No. 257 Khasra No. 2525/76 measuring 7 bighas and 9 biswas situated at Mohal Kasauli Tehsil Kasauli Distt. Solan (H.P.).
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
2. It is pleaded that w.e.f. 1946 to 1973 land in question was recorded as ‘Grazing field’ in the record of rights. It is further pleaded that in the year 1976 proprietary rights granted to Kanshi Ram and Paras Ram under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. It is further pleaded that on 06.03.1976 wrong entry of ‘Amda forest Kasauli’ was recorded in the record of rights. It is further pleaded that this entry is continuing in the revenue record. It is further pleaded that land in dispute is purchased by the petitioner vide registered sale deed on 27.01.2010 in consideration amount of Rs.35 lacs. It is further pleaded that thereafter on 20.04.2010 notice was issued for correction of wrong entry in the revenue record. It is further pleaded that suit land was earlier owned by Ruler of Baghat State before merger of the State in the dominion of India. It is further pleaded that in the month of December 2010 non-petitioner No.3 was advised to file a case in the competent Court of law. It is further pleaded that w.e.f. 1946 till 1973 land in dispute was shown as ‘Grazing field’ and in the subsequent jamabandi i.e. 1977-1978 wrong entry was recorded in the record of rights. Prayer for acceptance of civil writ petition sought.
3. Per contra response filed on behalf of non-petitioner No.1 pleaded therein that land in question is demarcated protected forest under the title D-246 Kasauli forest and is entirely in possession of the Forest Department since long back and is protected by boundary pillars. It is further pleaded that earlier land in dispute was owned by Ruler of Baghat State before merger and thereafter after the independence of the country said land was notified as D-246 Kasauli forest vide Govt. of Himachal Pradesh Gazette Notification No.51 dated 17.12.1960. It is further pleaded that forest is continuing in possession of the Forest Department since long back. It is further pleaded that as per order of Hon’ble Apex Court of India announced in Writ Petition (C) No.202 of 1995 dated 12.12.1996 titled T.N. Godavarman vs. Union of India and others land in dispute would come under the forest land. It is further pleaded that Forest Department is under the full control over the suit land. It is further pleaded that tenancy right could not be claimed upon Government land. Prayer for dismissal of civil writ petition sought.
4. Per contra separate response filed on behalf of non-petitioners No.2 & 3 pleaded therein that petitioner has deliberately purchased the land bearing revenue entries as (Amda forest Kasauli). It is further pleaded that suit land in dispute was in the ownership of State of Himachal Pradesh as per jamabandi for the year 1950-51. It is further pleaded that entry of (Amda forest Kasauli) was recorded in the revenue record much prior to the purchase of land by petitioner. It is further pleaded that vendor did not challenge the entry of (Amda forest Kasauli) at any point of time prior to sale. It is further pleaded that vendee has purchased the land with an encumbrance of (Amda forest Kasauli). It is further pleaded that petitioner has purchased the land in the year 2010 but entry of (Amda forest Kasauli) in the revenue record was in existence much prior to the purchase of property by petitioner i.e. w.e.f. 06.03.1976.
5. Petitioner filed rejoinder and reasserted the allegations mentioned in the civil writ petition.
6. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-petitioners at length and also perused the entire rec
