Bishan Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: M/s Chetna Thakur and Saurav Rattan, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. R.L. Sood, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Arjun respondent No.3. Lall, Advocate, Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- (a)

Issue a writ to declare and quash the permission order/letter dated 26.03.2018/Rev-B-F(10)75/2017 in favour of respondent No.3 passed by respondent No.1 in case file No./11-12/16 KSL-5811-12, as recommended by respondent No.2 under Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Rules, 2004 (as amended from time to time) herein, being ultra vires, opposed to law, arbitrary, erroneous, wrong, illegal and against the Rules made under Himachal 2 Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. (b) Further declare that respondent No.3 is not eligible and entitled for grant of such permission as envisaged under Rule 38-A Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Rules, 2014 (as amended from time to time) under Section 118 of Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972.

The petitioner is seeking the quashing of permission order/letter dated 26.03.2018 (Annexure P-2), in terms whereof, the Principal Secretary (Revenue) has conveyed to the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, H.P., the consent qua the grant of permission in favour of the private respondent under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, on the conditions mentioned therein. The writ petition has been filed on 26.09.2020, i.e. after than 2 years of issuance of impugned communication. Incidentally, the actual permission accorded by the Collector in terms of the provisions of Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 in favour of the private respondent has neither been challenged nor appended with the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is the only document, which was made available to the petitioner, which stands assailed by way 3 of the writ petition.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private respondent has taken objection with regard maintainability of the writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands and also on the ground that there is delay in the filing of the petition which has not been satisfactorily explained. The Court also stands informed that there are civil litigations pending between the parties relating to the agreement to sell entered into between the grandfather of the petitioner and the private respondent, on the strength of which, the private respondent had applied for the grant of permission under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Senior Counsel for the private respondent, this Court is of the considered view that in the light of seriously disputed issues raised in this writ petition, the petitioner cannot maintain this petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India. 4

Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that even the averments made in the writ petition do not sync with the documents appended with the writ petition, as, whereas, it stands averred in the writ petition that it is the petitioner, who had applied the documents for the purpose of the filing of the writ petition, after, he came to know through his counsel about the permission having been granted in favour of the private respondent under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, yet, the documents appended with the petition demonstrate that they have not been applied by the petitioner and one of the documents which is at page 69 and 70 of the paper book demonstrates that the same was applied by DRP i.e. District Revenue Patwari.

Be that as it may, as already observed by me hereinabove, in the light of the fact that there are civil litigations going on between the parties relating to the agreement to sell and further as the petitioner has approached the Court without actually assailing the permission accorded to the private respondent by the Authority concerned under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, this 5 Court is of the considered view that no indulgence as is being prayed for by the petitioner can be granted.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be allowed to withdraw the petition to enable him to pursue the remedy that is available under Section 118(3)(C) of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. This prayer is also opposed to by learned Senior Counsel for the private respondent as he submitted that the permission that was granted to the private respondent under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act was on the basis of recommendation of the Financial Commissioner, dated 28.11.2015, which has attained finality.