Whether approved for reporting?¹Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

1 For the Petitioners: uMr. R.L. Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arjun Lall and Ms. Sanjivini Sood, o Advocates. For the Respondents: Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate CGeneral.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file.

3. Petitioners/their duly authorized Power of Attorney submitted an application for issuance of demarcation order for enumerating dry and fallen PKhair trees. The application was processed by the resp.ondents. During such process, a certificate was also issued by the concerned Tehsildar Settlement on 23 .11.2024 to the following effect:-

“ Certificate120//2 C 2 e / r 1 ti , f ie7 d4 0 t / h 2 a , t 1 1 h 6 e 9 , l a 9 n 9 d 5 , p e9 r 2 ta 2, in 1 s 1 t 7 o 5 , K 1 h 1 as6 r 8 a , 7 N 4 o 4 .s , 996, 910, 978, r994/1, 2178, 2162, 2105, 2192, 537, 797, 2201u, 2194/3, 560, 2559/3, 753, 743, 758, 752, 774, 776, 2225, 2237, 2283, 2413, 736, 1057, 741, 997, 747/2, 1818, 1111 are in continues in possession of tohe land owners/co-shares prior to 26-01-1950 and further they have become absolute owners in proportion Cto the land revenue paid by them. The above land was vested to Govt. of H.P. vide mutation No.4643 on dated 11-08-1975 under H.P. Village Common Land Vesting Utilization Act, 1974 but lateron vide order No.Rev-hBA(3)8/2000 dated 18-07-2002 this land was vested to Shamlat Deh/Co-owners of Up Mahal Saloh Uprala vide g mutation No.484 dated 07-09-2002.”

The above certificate and the contents thereof are not in dispute. It has not been disputed by the respondents that the petitioners/their predecessors had been in possession over the land parcels prior to 26.01.1950, qua which permission to fell dry & fallen Khair trees was sought; They had become absolute owners in proportion to the land revenue paid by them. It is not in dispute that the land parcels in question had vested in the State of Himachal Pradesh vide mutation No.4643, attested on 11.08.1975 under the provisions of the HimPachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utiliza.tion Act, 1974. It is also an admitted factual position that to give effect to Act No.20 of 2001, amending t he aforesaid Act, mutation No.67 was attested oon 27.04.2022. Further mutation No.484 was also entered and attested on 07.09.2002 in favour of Sthamlat Deh/Co-owners. As a consequence, the auforesaid land, which had not been even put to use byo the respondent-State, was restored back to the owners/petitioners.

Despite the above admitted position, the hrespondents declined to accept petitioners’ application for gmarking and felling the dry & fallen Khair trees over the aforesaid land parcels on the ground that the land in Hquestion was vested in the State Government at one point of time and therefore, in view of order dated 10.09.2002 (at pages 68 to 72 of the paper book), marking and felling permission could not be granted. The gist of respondents’stand is reflected from the following paras of their reply:-

“3. That the petitioner No.5 i.e. Shri Parveen Puri son of Shri Desh Raj, Private Sale Agent had submitted application (P-14) for issue of demarcation order for the enumeration of dry and fallen Khair trees. It is submitted that land in question is Shamlat Deh and as per para 14 of Govt. of Himachal Pradesh Notification No.FFE-B-A(3) 4/99 dated 24.09.03 (Annexure P-26) the State Govt. may allow demarcation of land, maPrking and felling of trees on the land recorded as Shamlat Deh/Tika Hasab-Rasad Malguzari in favour of. the co-sharer on their furnishing of a certificatHe issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) concerned to the effect that they are in continuous possession of the land prior to 26.01.1950 and that further they hav e become absolute owners in proportion to the land frevenue paid by them and the said land has never been vested in the Government under any eonactment.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document