The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of impleading the State as a necessary party in property disputes where the suit property is vested in the State Government.

ORDER :

Shivaraj V. Patil, J. - Heard learned counsel representing the appellant. A suit for declaration and for consequential relief of permanent injunction was filed by one Manmohan Singh, Respondent 2 herein. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff failed to prove ownership and possession over the suit land; Defendants 1 to 3 became owners perfecting the title by adverse possession; and that the State, being a necessary party, was not impleaded.

2. The plaintiff filed the first appeal calling in question the validity and correctness of the decree passed by the trial court. The learned District Judge allowed the appeal and decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The State and the defendants in the suit filed two separate second appeals before the High Court. Both the appeals were dismissed. In the result, the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court stood confirmed. Hence, these appeals by the State.

3. The respondents, despite service of notice, have remained unrepresented.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed five issues. Issue 4 reads, "whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of parties?" Dealing with this issue, the trial court observed:

"No doubt the suit land is shown as shamlat and prima facie it stands vested in the Gram Panchayat and the State under the provisions of the H.P. Village Common Land Vesting and Utilisation Act, 1974. But it being the moot point, it cannot be decided in the absence of the Gram Panchayat or the State. But as the maxim goes that the plaintiff is the best judge against whom he has to claim the relief he cannot be compelled to make the State as party in this case. However, I hold that the State was the proper party to decide the case effectively. Moreover, I may make it clear that any decree between the parties shall not bind or affect the rights and interests of the State, if any."

5. It is clear, from what is stated above, that the trial court found, prima facie, that the suit property vested in the State Government; the State was the proper party to decide the case effectively and that the decree made between the parties shall not bind or affect the rights and interests of the State, if any. In the first appeal, the learned District Judge, Una, while dictating the judgment, noticed that the question whether or not the suit land had vested with the Gram Panchayat and subsequently in the State of Himachal Pradesh was necessary to be decided before deciding the controversy between the parties and that the decision in the appeal was likely to affect the interests of the State. In that view of the matter, he directed the Collector, Una to intervene and to state whether or not the State Government intends to contest the question of vesting of the suit land in the State. In response thereto, the learned District Attorney appeared on behalf of the State and filed the written statement. Thereafter, the learned District Judge proceeded to dispose of the appeal and, as already noticed above, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed reversing the judgment of the trial court. The State as well as the defendants filed second appeals before the High Court. The High Court, by an elaborate judgment, without raising substantial question of law for consideration that arose between the parties, dismissed the appeals.

6. The trial court, having noticed that, prima facie, the suit property vested in the State Government and no effective decree could be passed without impleading the State, being a proper party, ought to have directed the plaintiffs to implead the State or the court itself could have directed impleadment of the State. Even in the first appeal, the learned District Judge though issued notice to the Collector to intervene in the matter, did not think it proper to direct impleadment of the State as a party respondent; even though the written statement was filed, no issues were framed and no evidence was allowed to be led.