The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for eviction in accordance with the law and the limitations of lease/patta, emphasizing the statutory rights of the government over the land.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The plaintiff, one Shukru Ram, since deceased, and now substituted by his LRs, instituted Civil Suit No. 173 of 1993, before the learned Sub-Judge, 1st Class-I, Dharamshala. In the afore suit, he claimed, the, making of a declaratory decree, hence pronouncing him to acquire the proprietary rights, over the suit khasra Nos. Moreover, he also claimed the further relief that since he is in possession of the suit khasra Nos, the defendants be restrained from dis-possessing him therefrom, except, in accordance with law. The learned Sub-Judge, 1st Class,-I, Dharamshala, declined the espoused declaratory decree, inasmuch as, the plaintiff being declared to acquire proprietary rights, upon the suit khasra Nos. However, the relief of injunction was granted to him, and, the defendants were restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff, upon the suit land, till he becomes evicted, in accordance with law.

2. The State of H.P., became aggrieved from the judgment and decree, pronounced by the learned SubJudge, 1st Class,-I, Dharamshala, upon Civil Suit No. 173 of 1993, and for annulling it, it cast Civil Appeal No. 152- D/XIII/2010,before the learned First Appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Court, through its decision made thereon, on 7.1.2011, partly accepted the defendants' appeal and made a decision, that the plaintiff would not be dispossessed from the suit property, except in accordance with law. Further more, the learned First Appellate Court also, made a verdict that the proceedings drawn under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, against the plaintiff, are, maintainable. In addition, it was also declared that the suit land, vested in the State of H.P., free from all encumbrances, through the mandate, as enclosed in Section 3 of the H.P. Village Common Lands (Vesting and Utilization) Act 1974. Lastly, it was declared that the lease/patta, granted to the plaintiff, was only for a tenure of 5 years, qua khasra No. 324, and, for 10 years, qua khasra No. 325 and upon expiry of the afore tenure of lease(s), it/they ipso facto stood terminated.

3. The plaintiff, Shukru Ram, now substituted by his LRs, has challenged the afore verdict, pronounced upon Civil Appeal No. 152-D/XIII-2010, by the learned first Appellate Court, through his instituting RSA No. 90 of 2011, and, when the appeal came up for admission before this Court, on 18.3.2011, it became admitted, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law No. 1, 2 and 5:

1. Whether the findings of the Court below are perverse, based on misreading of oral and documentary evidence as also pleadings of the parties and drawing up of wrong inferences from the facts proved on record which has vitiated the findings?

2. Whether in view of the admitted plea that the appellant was a tenant on the two khasra numbers 324 and 325 for five yeatrs and ten years respectively in the absence of determination of tenancy in accordance with law, it could be assumed that the tenancy stood determined and the appellate had become trespasser?

3. Whether the decision of the two appeals against the said judgment at the instance of two different parties giving contradictory findings is justified and which has resulted in failure of justice."

4. Pertinently, the State of H.P. has not cast any appeal, before this Court, rather challenging the afore alluded determinations, made by the learned First Appellate Court, in the operative part of its judgment. Consequently, the operative part of the verdict pronounced, by the learned First Appellate Court, upon Civil Appeal No. 152-D/XIII-2010, acquires in so far, as the State of H.P, is concerned, the fullest finality and conclusivity, and it is also estopped against giving fullest effect thereto.

5. In Civil Suit No. 173 of 1993, one Salig Ram, was arrayed as co-defendant No. 2, and one Guru Lal, was arrayed as co-defendant No.3. A perusal of the records of RSA No. 621 of 2007, disclose that the State of H.