Back
2019 Supreme(HP) 1860
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Sureshwar Thakur, J.
Bhagat Singh - Appellants
Versus
State of H.P. - Respondent
RSA No. 339 of 2007
Decided On : 30-08-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. R. K. Gautam, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Megha Kapur Gautam, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Hemant Vaid Addl. A.G. with Mr. Y.S. Thakur & Mr. Vikrant Chandel Dy. A.Gs.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the vesting of shamlat land in the State Government under the H.P. Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilisation Act, 1974, and the legal rights of the plaintiff in such a scenario.
Headnote:
Shamlat Land - Property Dispute - Punjab Act, H.P. Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilisation Act, 1974 - [Punjab Act, H.P. Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilisation Act, 1974, Section 80 CPC]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant, claiming possession of the suit land. The defendant contested the suit, asserting that the land had vested in the Panchayat and then in the State Government, and that the plaintiff had no right or interest in the land.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court and the First Appellate Court both dismissed the plaintiff's suit based on an appraisal of the evidence.
Issues: The issues included the entitlement of the plaintiff for permanent injunction, cause of action, non-joinder of necessary parties, jurisdiction of the Court, and compliance with Section 80 CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court found that the suit land had vested in the State Government free from encumbrances, and that the plaintiff had no legal right or interest in the land. The Court also upheld the legal objections raised by the defendant.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the lower Courts were affirmed, resulting in the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.
JUDGMENT :
Sureshwar Thakur, J.
The instant appeal, stands, directed by the aggrieved plaintiff, against, the concurrent verdicts of dismissal, pronounced, respectively, by the learned trial Judge, upon, Civil Suit No. 117/91, and, upon Civil Appeal No. 300/2K RBT 169/04/2000, by the learned First Appellate Court, where throughs, his espoused decree for rendition of relief, of, permanent injunction, and, for possession, vis-a-vis, suit khasra numbers, and, against the defendant, stood declined.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the one Gulab Singh son of Sh. Sucheta resident of village Jatoli alias haroly, Tehsil and District Una was the land owner in the village with a share in shamlat land of the village according to Shajra nasab. The said Sh. Gulab Singh sold 53 kanals 17 marlas land along with share in shamlat land to late Sh. Rai Bahadur Jodha Mal vide registered sale deed dated 26.6.1934 for a consideration of Rs. 3,000/- and a mutation to this effect was sanctioned on 14.2.1935 vide mutation No. 1112. Due to this sale Rai Bahadur Jodha Mal became owner of Shamlat land measuring 108 kanals 8 marlas along with proprietary land measuring 53 kanals17 marlas and came in exclusive possession of the same. He continued in exclusive hissedari possession of shamlat land measuring 119kanals 2 marlas till his death and after his death his successors namely Sh. Joginder Lal and Sh. Jatinder Lal etc. inducted the plaintiff as non-occupancy tenant over 68 kanals of shamlat land i.e. suit land on payment of yearly rent of Rs. 10/- and since then he is continuing in possession of the suit land as tenant. He has planted mango and other fruit bearing trees and has built his abadi over the suit land. He has spent about Rs. 35,000/- in improving and reclaiming the suit land and now the same is irrigate done. An orchard is also thereon it. It is further alleged that the suit land never vested into Panchayat or the State Government but a wrong entry was incorporated in the revenue record by the revenue official showing 47 share of the suit land in the ownership of Gram Panchayat/State Government by way of vestment which was corrected by the order of Assistant Collector-I Grade through Fard Badar dated 27.8.1969. The plaintiff has been claiming in possession of the suit land under the owners and the defendant has no right, title or interest in it but the Collector, Una at the instance of some interested and influential person made an entry in favour of the owners vide his order dated 30.4.91. This order of Collector is beyond jurisdiction and he has no authority to change the entry incorporated in the series of jamabandis. The said order is still subjudice before the Divisional Commissioner Kangra at Dharmshala. On the basis of that order dated 30.4.1991 the defendant is now threatening to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land. Hence the plaintiff filed a suit for issuance of permanent injunction restraining the defendant to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land in any manner.
3. The defendant contested the suit on the grounds that the suit land was vested earlier with the Panchayat in the year 1955 and a mutation to this effect was sanctioned in favour of the panchayat vide mutation No. 2057 dated 7.2.1955 and the possession of the same remained with the panchayat and thereafter in the year 1976 it vested in State of H.P. and a mutation to this effect was sanctioned on 13.2.1976 vide mutation No. 2959. So the plaintiff has no right, title or interest with the suit land and the order of Collector dated 30.4.1991 is correct, legal and in accordance with law, and, it is denied by the defendant that the plaintiff has done plantation in the suit land or he improved the same. Rather it is alleged that since the suit land had already been vested in the panchayat, there was no occasion to induct the plaintiff as tenant on the suit land and the entry regarding this has been procured by the plaintiff wrongly
