STATE OF H.P. Vs. RAVINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties. As short question is involved, appeal is taken up for final disposal forthwith by consent.

(2.) THIS appeal takes exception to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 27th April, 2007 and 26th April, 2011, passed in CWP No.569 of 2001 and Review Petition No.98 of 2010, respectively. The respondent filed the above numbered CWP for issuing direction to the State Authorities to acquire the land, referred to in the petition. That petition succeeded vide order dated 27th April, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge rejected the stand taken by the State and directed the State Authorities to initiate proceedings under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on the finding that the land, referred to in the writ petition, was in possession of the State Authorities. That . finding was recorded on the basis of the plea taken by the State Authorities, including of having become owner by adverse possession. However, later on, when the State Authorities realized that the stand taken to oppose the writ petition, filed by of the respondent, was incorrect as it was noticed during the subsequent inspections and demarcation proceedings that the land, referred to in the writ petition, was not in possession of the State Authorities and that the school building was, in fact, standing on the Government land, the State Authorities decided to apply for the review of the direction, given by this Court, while disposing of CWP No.569 of 2001. Since there was delay in filing the Review, application for condonation of delay was filed. However, the learned Single Judge dismissed the said application and as a consequence thereof, the Review Petition came to be dismissed being time barred. Even this decision is subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

(3.) THE technicalities invoked by the respondent for non -suiting the appellants -State Authorities, in our opinion, is an argument of desperation. The fact that the State Authorities in the writ petition took a plea that they were in possession of the land, referred to in the writ petition, for quite some time and had become owners thereof, by adverse possession, was obviously under mistaken belief. That is reinforced from the subsequent demarcation proceedings. These are matters, which will have to be examined and answered authoritatively, by the Court.