Prabh Dayal v. State of H.P & Ors.

The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph,C.J. The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. For the petitioner: Mr.Tarun K.Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.R.K.Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Ankush D. Sood, Addl. A.G. for respondent No.1. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner has assailed the order dated

11.5.2011 passed by Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, H.P. in Case No.168/99 (Old) &434/2009(new), operative portion of which reads as under:- (cid:147)Both the parties were summoned and asked to adduce their arguments and the record pertaining to the instant case was also requisitioned. Arguments of the counsels of both parties were heard. I have considered the arguments put forth by the counsels of both the parties also gone through the record and law point. Further to verify the factual position of the case the Assistant Consolidation Officer, hamirpur was directed 2 to inspect the spot and submit his report after inspecting the spot in presence of parties. The Assistant Consolidation Officer, hamirpur submitted his detailed report after visiting the spot which is placed on the case file. Now having perused the report of the Assistant Consolidation Officer as well as record placed on the case file it transpires that khasra No.799(Old) measuring 10-8 kanals of value 8 Annas was in the ownership and joint possession of the petitoner and respondent and other co-sharers before the Consolidation proceedings and in which the petitioner(cid:146)s share was 1-6 kanals and respondents share was 0-15 kanals. During Consolidation proceedings the petitioner was allotted 1-18 kanals area from this particular khasra number. The khasra No.799 min (Old) and 1032 (New) measuring 0-8 marlas was in possession of the petitioner before Consolidation proceedings but this khasra number was rightly allotted to the respondent during Consolidation Operation because it was near his house. Hence, there is no force in the present revision petition of the petitioner. (cid:148)

Inspection has been carried out in the presence of both the parties and the order has been passed on the report of inspection submitted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. From the record, it could not be pointed out as to how the impugned order is perverse, arbitrary or illegal in any manner. In 3 any event, disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere in the present petition. However, liberty granted to the petitioner to take recourse to such remedies as may be available to him in accordance with law.