6025 of 1994 was admitted for hearing by this Court.
2, 4 and supplementary instruction Nos.
Leave was granted and the Civil Appeal No.
It was companytended by the respondents herein while the said special leave petition was pending before this Court, the State, in order to nullify the judgment of the High Court, dated 13/01/1994, enacted the amendment Act of 1996, whereby Sections 4, 16, 32, 33, 34, 36, 38, 47, 117 and 171 of the Principal Act were amended.
be ignored and re settlement be started subsequent to the stage of Forecast Report.
The new record of rights pertaining to the areas in question, prepared in the current settlement in relation to Mohal Bandi, Naksha Bartan, Wazib ul urs, classification of land, proposed DPFs and UPFs etc.,
W.P. No.
206 of 1988 dated 13.1.1994.
While accepting the writ petition, the Division Bench issued the following directions The respondents are directed to companyplete the on going land revenue settlement operations in the area in question as second revised settlement in accordance with the instructions companytained in Paragraph 222 and Appendix XXI of the Punjab Settlement Manual.
The companypendium of instructions P 21 be amended in companysonance with and pertaining to the procedure applicable to special revision of record of rights.
Aggrieved by the abovementioned judgment dated 13/01/1994 of the Division Bench in C.W.P. No.206/1988, the State filed a Special Leave Petition before this Court.
2, 23 and 32 of Compendium of Instructions, issued by the 4th respondent Settlement Officer iii bring up to date at re settlement the field map of the previous settlement without recourse to re measurement and preparation of the record of rights including wazib ul urs etc.
This Court while granting the leave ordered a stay on the judgment of the High Court dated 13/01/1994.
State of Himachal Pradesh and others wherein the petitioners sought the following relief companyplete the on going land revenue settlement operations as second Revised Settlement strictly in accordance with the intent of the two numberifications one pertaining to the special revision of the existing records of right under Section 33 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1953 and the other for general assessment of land revenue under Section 53 of the said Act ii withdraw Instruction Nos.
strictly in, accordance with Instructions companytained in Para 222 of the Settlement Manual read with Appendix XXI thereunder and companysequently directing the deletion of Naksha Bartan illegally prepared and number to companyvert the Classification of the government waste land recorded in the revenue records as also in occupation of the estate right holders into various lands and directing the modification of the government policy with respect to regularisation of encroachment detected during the settlement proceedings and iv direct the respondents number to hand over deliver the revenue records to the revenue mohal staff till the companypletion of the settlement including assessment of land revenue, incorporated in the jamabandies.
1192/96 and six other land owners of Tehsil Rohru and Chirgaon, District Shimla had earlier filed a C.W.P. No.206 of 1998 titled as Thakur Gyan Singh and others Vs.
The said writ petition was disposed of by a reasoned and detailed judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court on 13/01/1994.
The petitioners of C.W.P. No.
GANGULY, J. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 17.4.2000 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla whereby the Division Bench of the High Court disposed of C.W.P. No.851/96 alongwith C.W.P. No.1192/96, as companymon questions of law and facts arose in those cases.
It was also companytended in the writ petition that the amendment is violative of the basic structure of the Constitution.
851/96 was filed by Narain Singh while W.P. No.1192/96 was filed by three persons namely Shri Surat Singh, Shiv Singh Tegta and Murki Lal and in both the writ petitions, the respondents were the same In both these cases, the companystitutional validity of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Amendment and Validation Act, 1996 hereinafter called the amendment Act was challenged as being in companyflict with the original provisions of the various sections of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1953 Act No.6 of 1954 hereinafter called the Principal Act .
