Shimla, March 10,
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh, comprising Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma, partially allowed a Letters Patent Appeal filed by Roshan Lal (deceased) through his legal representative. The Court set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, citing insufficient evidence and procedural lapses in the earlier decision.
Support Independent Journalism Complete Your Membership
Choose Your Membership
Background of the case
The dispute centers around the confiscation of 3 bighas of land in Khasra No. 744/238/2, Mauja Barog, Tehsil and District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. The land, along with a building constructed on it, was confiscated by the State on the grounds that it was transferred to a non-agriculturist without the requisite permission.
The Collector, Solan, had ordered the confiscation on May 7, 2006, which was upheld by the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla, on September 6, 2008, and later by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) on June 2, 2009. Aggrieved by these orders, the appellant filed a writ petition (CWP No. 2335 of 2009), which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on August 23, 2018, leading to the present appeal.
Key arguments
The appellant contended that the findings of the learned Single Judge were not supported by the evidence on record. It was argued that the possession of the land had not been transferred to the non-agriculturist (respondent No. 3), and the construction on the land was limited to a smaller portion (3 biswas) rather than the entire 3 bighas. The appellant also highlighted that a civil suit had previously been decided in his favor on August 24, 1999, restraining the State from interfering with his possession.
On the other hand, the State argued that the orders passed by the statutory authorities were justified and that the learned Single Judge’s decision was well-reasoned and should not be interfered with.
Court’s observations
The Court observed that the learned Single Judge had relied heavily on presumptions and entries in the revenue records to conclude that possession of the land had been transferred to the non-agriculturist (respondent No. 3). However, the authorities had not conducted a proper demarcation of the land, and no independent witnesses were called to verify the possession. This raised serious doubts about the validity of the findings regarding the transfer of possession.
The appellant had consistently argued that the agreement with respondent No. 3 was only for 3 biswas (150 yards) of land, whereas the State had confiscated 3 bighas. This significant discrepancy in the land measurement was not adequately addressed by the learned Single Judge, leading to an unjustified confiscation of a larger portion of the land.
The Court found that the principles of natural justice were violated during the proceedings. No proper notice was issued to the appellant or respondent No. 3 before the confiscation order was passed. Additionally, the authorities failed to conduct a proper on-site inspection or demarcation, which further undermined the fairness of the process.
The Court noted that a civil suit had previously been decided in favor of the appellant on August 24, 1999, restraining the State from interfering with his possession of the land. This earlier judgment was not adequately considered by the authorities or the learned Single Judge, despite its relevance to the case.
The learned Single Judge had assigned a presumption of truth to the entries in the revenue records, concluding that possession had been transferred. However, the Court found that this presumption was not firmly rebutted by the evidence on record, and the appellant had consistently maintained that he was still in possession of the land.
The appellant argued that even if construction had taken place, it was limited to a smaller portion of the land (3 biswas) and not the entire 3 bighas. The Court found that this aspect was not properly examined, and the confiscation of the entire 3 bighas was disproportionate and unjustified.
The Court highlighted that the learned Single Judge had failed to examine critical aspects of the case, such as the actual extent of the land involved in the agreement, the lack of proper demarcation, and the violation of statutory provisions under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972.
Court’s decision
Based on these observations, the High Court set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
“ In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the findings which have been recorded are not based on the evidence on record before the authorities whereby the learned Single Judge had gone on to hold that the possession was parted with which was sine qua non to come to the said conclusion which even the authorities had not done so, stated the court order. Adding,” The learned Single Judge as such could not make out a better case as such for the State by the impugned order and therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are not justified in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and cannot be maintained. Resultantly, we partly allow the appeal to the extent that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh decision on the basis of the evidence which has already been led by both the sides,” noted the division bench.
The Court emphasized the need for a thorough and fair examination of the evidence, including proper demarcation of the land and consideration of the earlier civil suit in favor of the appellant.
