Gian Chand and Another vs State of H.P. and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.—The Petitioners purchased some land from one Shri Yudhvir Singh. Unfortunately, Sh. Yudhvir Singh, much prior to the sale, had already declared this land to be surplus in terms of the HP Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 and as such this land had vested in the State. It, however, appears that possession remained with the Petitioners and they constructed some houses on the said land. One of the Petitioners served in the C.R.P.F and retired in the year 1986. Thereafter in the year 1987 he filed a civil suit claiming that he is owner in possession of the land. The civil suit was dismissed on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in view of the fact that the land had been declared surplus by the original owner.

The Petitioners then filed revision petition against the order of the Collector before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals). This matter has been dealt with in detail by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) has virtually found the Petitioners to be in possession, but has held that since the land has vested in the State of Himachal Pradesh, the Petitioners have no legal right over the same. Having held so, the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) made the following observations:

...Although, in view of the above, it is not possible for this Court to grant any relief to Shri Gian Chand and Shri Raghuvir Singh, however, this case is recommended to the Government of H.P. for taking a sympathetic view in the matter in allowing the area under the ''Abadi'' to be allotted to the occupants Shri Gian Chand and his brother against market value prevalent at the time when the purchase was made in 1974....

The grievance of the Petitioners now is that the State of Himachal Pradesh has not considered the case of the Petitioners by taking a sympathetic view of the matter as directed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals). It is not disputed that the order the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) has attained finality. It also appears from the record that the Petitioners are in possession of the land in question. It is apparent that they have been duped by the original owner. Keeping these factors in view, the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) had directed that the State should consider/take a sympathetic view of the matter. Once such an order was passed, the Principal Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh was required to consider the matter in the light of the observations made by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals). It appears that nobody at the State level has dealt with the matter and only the Deputy Commissioner has considered the matter and has only said that it be filed. He should have considered the matter keeping in view the humanitarian grounds involved.

. 4. Therefore, the petition is disposed of with the direction to the Respondent-State to ensure that a decision in the matter is taken in accordance with the recommendations made by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) within three months from today after the receipt of copy of this order. Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. The Registry is directed to send back the records.