HARBHAJAN SINGH versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 13 S.C.R. 1037 · Decided: 23-11-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1037 
HARBHAJAN SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5767 of 2002) 
NOVEMBER 23, 2010 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] 
Land Laws and Agricultural Tenancy: 
A 
B 
Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and c 
Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 - ss. 14, 15, 16 and 
32 - Consolidation of holdings - Declaration for consolidation 
of land in Revenue Estate Damtal and other villages - Lands 
of appellant and public trust, in Revenue Estate Damtal 
valued and proposed for exchange - Notification by State 
0 
Government u/s. 16(1) cancelling the declaration in relation 
to Revenue Estate Damtal before delivery of possession of 
allotted holdings to appellants and public trust - Legality of 
- Held: Notification was legal and valid - State Government 
had the power uls. 16(1) to cancel the declaration since the 
E 
consolidation scheme did not come into force in the Revenue 
Estate Damtal - Appellant and public trust did not enter into 
possession of the holdings allotted to them pursuant to the 
orders passed by the Consolidation Officer -
State 
Government was not required to follow principles of natural 
F 
justice before issuing such notification -
More so, 
consolidation operation in Revenue Estate Damtal was not 
in the interest of the general public and better cultivation of 
land - Thus, dominant purpose for issuing the notification was 
not extraneous but in accord with the objects of the Act- Order 
passed by High Court upholding the notification is justified -
G 
Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention 
of Fragmentation) Rules, 1973 - r. 18 - Principles of natural 
justice. 
1037 
H 
1038 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
Words and phrases: 
B 
Expression 'at any time' - Connotation of in the context 
of s. 16(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation 
and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971. 
On 03.10.1986, the Director, Land Consolidation 
Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh issued a 
notice under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh 
Holdings 
(Consolidation 
and 
Prevention 
of 
Fragmentation) Act, 1971 that it had made a plan for land 
C consolidation of 14 villages including Revenue Estate 
Damtal Khas, in the interest of general public and better 
cultivation of agricultural land. The appellant and 
respondent No.2-Damtal Temple, owned land in Revenue 
Estate Damtal Khas. Their lands were valued. The land 
D of the appellant was exchanged with the land of the 
Damtal Temple. There was deficiency in the allotted area 
of the appellant. The excess of area allotted to 
respondent No.2 was excluded from the area of 
respondent No.2 and was included in the'holding of the 
E appellant to make his deficiency in the allotted area. On 
27 .09.1999, the State Government issued a notification 
under sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act cancelling 
the declaration dated 03.10.1986 as regards the land 
related to Revenue Estate Damtal Khas. Thereafter, the 
F Revenue Estate Damtal Khas ceased to be under 
consolidation operation. Aggrieved, the appeilant 
challenged the notification. The Division Bench of the 
High Court dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, the 
appellant filed the instant appeal. 
G 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
,,__ 
HELD: 1.1. The bare language of Section 16(1) of the 
Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and 
Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 is clear that the 
H State Government has the power to cancel the 
HARBHAJAN SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL 
1039 
PRADESH & ORS. 
declaration made under Section 14 in respect of any area 
A 
'at any time'. The expression 'at any time' in Section 16(1) 
of the Act though wide is controlled by other provisions 
B 
of the Act. Section 32(1) of the Act provides that if all the 
owners and tenants affected by the scheme of 
consolidation or, as the case may be, repartition, as finally 
confirmed agree to enter into possession of the holdings 
allotted to them thereunder, the Consolidation Officer may 
allow them to enter into such possession forthwith or 
from such date as may be specified by him. Section 32 
further provides that if all the owners and tenants do not c 
agree to enter into possession under Section 32(1), they 
shall be entitled to possession of the holdings and 
tenancies allotted to them from the commencement of the 
agricultural year next following the date of the publication 
of the scheme under sub-section (3) of 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.