@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
V.K. Mehrotra, J.@mdashMela Singh and four others are Julahas by caste and residents of village Basdehra, Tehsil and District Una. They have
approached this Court for redress in the matter of proceedings under the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of
Fragmentation) Act, 1974 (for brief; ""the Act"").
2. The dispute centres round Khasra Plot No. 573 (Old). The entire Khasra plot, according to the jamabandi for the year 1968-69, was in use for
common purposes as a Tohba. During consolidation proceedings a scheme was framed for the use of land which was being utilized for common
purposes. In respect of plot No. 573 it was mentioned that it was land for ""general use"" and the nature of the land was described as ""Gair Mumkin
Tohba"". The scheme provided that the land will continue to be used for general use by the general public. Later, a modification was brought about
in the scheme. The area of plot No. 573(old) which was found to be ""Tohba"" was left for common use and the remaining portion of the plot was
left to be allotted for the purposes of Abadi for persons of Kabirpanthi community.
3. The case of the petitioner is that when the allottees attempted to take possession over a portion of plot No. 573(old), they learnt for the first
time about the so-called change in the scheme. A number of villagers, including some members of the village panchayat, filed a written objection
before the Consolidation Officer on July 12, 1976. The Consolidation Officer, as is clear from the return filed on behalf of the Director of
Consolidation, Himachal Pradesh, and the other respondents representing the State of Himachal Pradesh, convened a meeting of the village
community on July 14, 1976. Amongst the persons who had signed the objection, all the members of the Panchayat were present in the meeting
except one Smt. Maya Devi. By a consensus, everyone present in that meeting expressed assent to the modification made in the scheme by the
authorities by providing for utilization of land in plot No. 573(old), apart from the area actually used as Tohba. for extension of village Abadi.
4. The present petitioners took the matter in revision u/s 54 of the Act before the State Government. The revision was dismissed Then they came
to this Court.
5. The main submission which has been made in this Court on behalf of the petitioners is that the Act does not permit allotment of any land meant
for common purposes to landless persons, like respondents 4 to 7, to whom it has been allotted for building purposes. As such, according to the
submission, even a provision in the scheme, said to have been modified by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), will not permit allotment of any
part of Khasra No. 573(old) for purposes of building of houses.
6. Section 27 of the Act, in so far as it is material reads thus : --
27. Land reserved for common purposes. --Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, it shall be lawful for the
Consolidation Officer,--
(a)and(b) ......
(c) If in any area under Consolidation no land is reserved for any common purpose including extension of village abadi, or if the land so reserved is
inadequate, to assign other land, for such purpose.
7. Section 59 of the Act permits the State Government to make rules. In its material part it reads thus :
59. Rule making power-- (1) The State Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for--
(a) to (d) ......
(e) the manner, in which, the area is to be reserved u/s 27 in which it is to be given to proprietors and non-proprietors on payment of
compensation or otherwise;
(f) to (v) .......
(3) and (4) ......
8. In exercise of the powers contained in this provision, the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules,
1973, have been framed. Rule 26 is relevant for purposes of the present case. Sub-rule (1) of this Rule, which alone need be read, says that:
26(1). Reservation of area of common purposes.-- (1) The area to be reserved for the common purpose of extension of abadi for proprietors and
non-proprietors u/s 27(c) of the Act shall, be reserved after scrutinizing the demand of proprietors desirous of building houses and of non-
proprietors including harijan families working as agrarian labourers who arc in need of a site for house. For the and a allotted to proprietors for
extension of abadi the land that has to be deducted from their holdings will be indicated in the scheme for the village in case of non-proprietors
including harijan families, those shall be allotted without payment of compensation and they shall be deemed to be full owners of the plots allotted
to them.
(2)......
9. It is evident that the provisions of Section 27(c) of the Act read with those of Rule 26(1) empowered the allotment of such area of plot No.
573(old) for purposes of building of houses as was found necessary to be provided in the scheme to be framed under the Act. The validity of the
Rule is not under challenge.
10. On this short ground it must be held that the decision taken by the Consolidation authorities in the matter is in consonance with law.
11. The principle aforesaid was upheld by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Ranjit Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others,
which was a case arising out of proceedings under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, (as
amended). Their Lordships considered provisions akin to Section 27 and Rule 26 of the Himachal Pradesh Act and Rules, namely, Section 18 of
the Punjab Act and Rule 16 thereof.
12. In consequence, the writ petition fails and is dismissed, though in the circumstances of the case, I would leave the parties to bear their own
costs.
13. The interim order shall stand discharged.
