LPA No. 109 of 2007. Case: Rajinder and Ors. Vs Gokal Chand and Ors.. Himachal Pradesh High Court
| Case Number | LPA No. 109 of 2007 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate and For Respondents: G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate and B.C. Verma, Advocate |
| Judges | Mansoor Ahmad Mir, C.J. and Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XX Rule XX; Himachal Pradesh Agricultural Credit Operations and Miscellaneous Provisions (Banks) Act, 1972 - Section 11 |
| Judgement Date | May 02, 2015 |
| Court | Himachal Pradesh High Court |
Judgment:
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
CMP No. 2973 of 2015.
-
The respondents were writ petitioners and have preferred this application for amendment of the prayer clause in the writ petition by claiming the following additional relief:
ii) A That the order as passed by the Deputy Commissioner, vide Annexure P-3 may kindly be cancelled to the extent whereby sale transaction in favour of the respondents Lachhman Dass and Roop Lal has been upheld, the same being illegal and void for the reasons as explained above. Similarly, order Annexure P- 4 dated 20.11.2000 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, may be set-aside and quashed.
-
It is averred that though in the grounds of the writ petition, particularly in para 12(ii) thereof, the applicant had submitted that the Deputy Commissioner in absence of any provision for review could not have reviewed his order and therefore, the order passed by him was without jurisdiction and illegal. But due to inadvertence, specific prayer for quashing the same could not be made necessitating filing of the present application.
-
The appellants, who are the writ respondents have filed their reply wherein preliminary objection has been taken to the effect that the applicant cannot be permitted to fill in the lacunae of his case. The application should be bonafide one and should not cause injustice to the other party. The same should be necessary for determining the real question in controversy and since the proposed amendment does not qualify any of the aforesaid conditions, therefore, the same should be dismissed. It is further contended that the application is misconceived as the amendment is now sought at the LPA stage and ought to have been moved before the learned writ court.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
-
No doubt, the amendment has been sought when the matter is in appeal, but the proposed amendment is only formal since it only seeks to add an additional prayer in the relief clause, for which the foundations have already been laid not only in the writ petition but also in the grounds taken therein. It is trite that amendment can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings. Therefore, we see no reason why the amendment should not be allowed as no prejudice will be caused to the non-applicant(s) by amending only the relief clause.
-
Accordingly, the present application is allowed and the amended writ petition is ordered to be taken on record. The learned counsel for the non-applicants (appellants herein) states that they do not intend to file reply(s) to the amended petition. The application stands disposed of.
LPA No. 109 of 2007:
-
With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing.
-
This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the writ Court in CWP No. 523 of 2006 on 6.8.2007 whereby after setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner as affirmed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 was allowed and the sale of property made in favour of the appellants by proforma respondent Lakhu was declared null and void and the State Government was directed to resume the land.
-
In brief, the facts of the case are that one Lakhu alias Amru was granted Nautor of land measuring 3-12-16 bighas on 13.11.1980 under the Himachal Pradesh Grant of Nautor Land to Landless Persons and Other Eligible Persons Scheme, 1975 (for short 'Scheme'). Though, mutation to this effect was also entered in the revenue record on 13.11.1980, however, formal sanction came to be granted only on 31.3.1981. Lakhu thereafter vide sale deed dated 29.11.1995 sold a portion of this land measuring 0-7-5 bighas in favour of appellant No. 1 Rajinder. Another sale was effected on 30.5.1996 in favour of other appellant Lachhman Dass, who died and his legal representatives have been brought on record and are now appellants No. 3 to 7 and lastly a sale deed was executed on 8.7.1996 in favour of Roop Lal, appellant No. 2.
-
Aggrieved by the grant of Nautor as also the alienation made by Lakhu, the respondent No. 1 claiming himself to be an estate right holder of the mouza concerned, preferred a petition under Section 11 of the Scheme, whereby he not only challenged the grant of...
To continue reading
Request your trial