Ravinder Parkash Verma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

Anoop Chitkara, J

The cases bearing Nos. CWP No. 54 of 2019, CWP No. 654 of 2000, CWP No. 287 of 2001, RSA No. 452 of 2007, RSA No. 459 of 2007 and FAO

No. 315 of 2002, were heard together and are being decided simultaneously.

However, this Court is passing separate detailed judgments in each of these cases.

Seeking enforcement of correction of revenue entries, as directed in an order dated 06-06-1995, passed by Financial Commissioner (Appeals),

Himachal Pradesh, in Case no. 18/01, the petitioner has come up before this Court for issuance of directions, on the grounds that the respondents have

failed to give effect to the order for the last 24 years.

Although this matter was not yet admitted by Ld. Division Bench; However, while hearing all other matters pending between Mr. Ravinder Parkash

Verma, the Petitioner and Mr. Sudama Ram Sharma (Proposed respondent no. 5), on the joint request of counsel for the parties, this Court took up

this matter for a final hearing to bring an end to all the disputes between the parties. Consequently, the CMP No. 7970 of 2019, which is an application

under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, for impleadment of Sh. Sudama Ram Sharma, as the 5th respondent, is allowed. Sh. Sudama Ram

Sharma is added as Respondent No. 5. Registry to make necessary corrections in the Memo of Parties.

I have heard Mr. G.D.Verma, Sr. Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashwani Sharma and Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, learned Additional

Advocates General for respondents No. 1 to 3, Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, for respondent No. 4 and Mr.

Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate, learned counsel for newly added Respondent No. 5. I have also waded through the entire record.

The matter traces its origin to a complaint filed by the petitioner before Settlement Officer, District Shimla, HP, on 18.3.1991. The petitioner

informed the Settlement Officer that Sudama Ram, the 5th Respondent, had constructed his house by misstating the facts about the path that would

connect his proposed house to the Government road. Mr. Ravinder Parkash explicitly stated that the road shown was, in fact, property of the

Government.

Vide order dated 1.6.1991, Ld. Assistant Settlement Officer found substance in the complaint, and observed that the boundaries had been inspected,

and noticed the old cemented burjis. During this inquiry, the petitioner, Mr. Ravinder Parkash Verma, gave another application to the inquiry officer,

and leveled allegations that the approach road to the house of Mr. Sudama Ram, the 5th respondent herein, passes through the Government land. On

this, the statements of the concerned Junior Engineer of the Municipal Corporation, as well as the Revenue officers, were also recorded. It surfaced in

the inquiry that Hari Chand, who was posted as Patwari of that area, issued a tatima dated 13.6.1989 to Mr. Sudama Ram. In this, Tatima, the

Patwari showed the path and gave a separate khasra number to this path by assigning a new number 192/2. The inquiry found that this Tatima was

prepared in the absence of the corresponding reference in fard Inspection.

Ld. Assistant Settlement Officer ordered the correction of revenue records by removing new entries against khasra no. 192/2 old (355/1 new) and

directed that only khasra no. 355 be shown in revenue records. It also issued a further direction, which is not the subject matter of this writ petition.

Mr. Sudama Ram challenged this order before Ld. Divisional Commissioner, who upheld the same in Revenue Appeal no. 117/91.

Feeling aggrieved, Mr. Sudama Ram filed an appeal under Section 14 of the H.P.Land Revenue Act before Financial Commissioner. Vide order

dated 6. 6.1995, Ld. Financial Commissioner dismissed the appeal and also issued guidelines to the Revenue officials.

Despite more than two and a half decades of the passing of this order, the Petitioner complaints that the revenue entries were not restored ante,

and thus has come up before this Court seeking directions to the State of HP to delete the entry of ‘Bartandaran’ and to correct the revenue

entries by the restoration of the kind of land as per original and untampered revenue record.

The Petitioner pleads in Para 2 of the petition that the Government land comprised in khasra number 355 (Old no. 192), was in possession of

Executive Engineer, Central Division, Shimla. However, after the settlement, this entry was changed to “Kabja Swayam Tave Hakook Bartan

Bartandaran Mutavik Naksha Bartanâ€​, and the kind was changed from “Ghasniâ€​ to “Charagah Drakhtanâ€​.

The Settlement Officer Shimla, the 2nd respondent, in its reply Affidavit, states that khasra no. 355/1 has been restored to khasra no. 355.

However, the Affidavit is silent about the restoration of kism of land and new rights created against this khasra number belonging to the Government.

The Affidavit further reads that now it if for the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, the 3rd respondent, to make any corrections, because the records

have been returned to it.

The 3rd respondent, the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, in its reply Affidavit, does not deny that the records are in his office.

The 5th Respondent Mr. Sudama Ram Sharma, in its Application under Order 1 Rule 10 states that there exists a path on this khasra number since

time immemorial and this Petition is filed to obstruct this path.

The relief sought by the Petitioner is to enforce the order passed by Ld. Financial Commissioner qua corrections of entries in revenue records in

khasra number 355/1, by restoring the same to the original entries and position prior to the settlement.

None of the respondents dispute the finality of the order dated 6.6.1995, passed by Ld. Financial Commissioner. The only relief the Petitioner

confines is the enforcement of this order by the restoration of entries in kism/kind of land, as it stood before alleged tampering.

Given the above discussions and analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the 3rd respondent must make the necessary corrections in

the revenue record. Consequently, this Court directs the 3rd respondent, the Deputy Commissioner Shimla to order the correction of concerned

revenue record as per order dated 6.6.1995, passed by Ld. Financial Commissioner, by deleting the entries of “Kabja Swayam Tave Hakook

Bartan Bartandaran Mutavik Naksha Bartan†and restoration of this with the earlier entries before the tampering by inserting “Ghasni†in the

kind/kism of the land in issue, described in old khasra number 192, and described in Annexure P-6, the Jamabandi for the year 1983-84. Such

corrections be positively made on or before 31 Dec 2020.

Given the ground reality that Mr. Sudama Ram had purchased his land before the purchase of property by Mr. Ravinder Parkash and his wife

Mrs. Surekha; and Mr. Sudama Ram had constructed his building before 1990, and Mr. Sudama Ram and the other occupants of the building are

using this path for almost three decades. Consequently, to bring an end to all the disputes between the parties, and to do the substantial Justice, this

Court clarifies that it shall be open for the State Government/Central Government to change the nature and usage of the land being used as aforesaid

path and to authorize Municipal Corporation Shimla to declare this land as public path/road, provided the beneficiary Mr. Sudama Ram Sharma, or any

other person who subsequently acquires interest in the land/building, compensate the State of HP as well as the Central Government who are the

owners of the land in the revenue records, to the extent of their respective shares, which is allegedly used as the approach road to his house, by paying

the market value of the land utilized for dedicated to the road or used in the road, along with interest at the rate of 1% per month from the date of

assessment until its payment by Mr.Sudama Ram Sharma or his successors. At the time of assessment of market value, the State shall associate Mr.

Ravinder Parkash and consider his views as well as consider any valuation report placed by him, to determine the prevailing market price of the land

in issue. This Court hopes that the authorities of the Central and the State Governments shall take a lenient view in permitting Mr. Sudama Ram to use

this land as path/road towards his house keeping in view the fact that there is no other approach road to his house. It is further clarified that Mr.

Ravinder Parkash, Mrs. Surekha and their successors, shall be entitled to connect their property from this approach road, and the General Public shall

also be entitled to use this path, without any obstacle, hindrance or obstruction by any person, whom so ever.

Given the above analysis and reasoning, the writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. All pending applications, if any, are closed.