Back
2014 Supreme(HP) 1522
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
P.S. RANA, J.
Jarmej Singh S/o. Rasila Singh and others - Appellants
Versus
Raghubir Singh S/o. Mangtu - Respondent
RSA No. 118 of 2003
Decided On : 19-12-2014
For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Mahajan.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ajay Sharma.
The judgment establishes the principle that in a suit involving land owned by the general public, plaintiffs must seek leave to file in representative capacity, and the validity of an allotment certificate under the H.P. Village Common Land Scheme is upheld.
Headnote:
Code of Civil Procedure - Regular Second Appeal - Section 100 - Suit land ownership dispute - H.P. Village Common Land Vesting and Utilization Act 1974 - Sections 9, 10 - Plaintiffs' lack of locus standi - Allotment certificate by Collector - Mutation and ownership records - Representative capacity of suit - Relief denied to plaintiffs
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed suit for possession of land, claiming ownership as co-sharers. Defendant claimed ownership through allotment certificate under H.P. Village Common Land Scheme. Trial Court dismissed suit, affirmed by first Appellate Court.
Finding of the Court:
High Court dismissed appeal, finding plaintiffs lacked locus standi as suit land was owned by general public, not exclusively by plaintiffs. Allotment certificate in favor of defendant was valid, and plaintiffs did not seek leave to file suit in representative capacity.
Issues: Ownership of suit land, locus standi of plaintiffs, validity of allotment certificate, representative capacity of suit
Ratio Decidendi: Plaintiffs lacked locus standi as suit land was owned by general public, and they did not seek leave to file suit in representative capacity. Allotment certificate in favor of defendant was valid under H.P. Village Common Land Scheme.
Final Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed, judgments and decrees of lower courts affirmed. Plaintiffs denied relief, and parties left to bear their own costs.
JUDGMENT :
P.S. Rana, J.
Regular Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 5.8.2002 passed by learned Additional District Judge–I Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 24-N/2000 titled Jarmej Singh vs. Raghubir Singh whereby learned Additional District Judge Kangra at Dharamshala had affirmed the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court i.e. Civil Judge Court No. II Nurpur District Kangra in Civil Suit No. 67 of 1995 titled Jarmej Singh and others vs. Raghubir Singh.
2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded are that Jarmej Singh and others plaintiffs filed suit for possession of suit land comprised in Khata No. 85 Khatauni No. 271 min Khasra No. 19, 20 and 27 measuring 0-31-42 situated in Tikka mauja Thapkaur Tehsil Nurpur District Kangra H.P. It is pleaded that suit land is Shamlat Deh Hasab Rajad Malguzari (All proprietors of village have shares as per payment of land revenue) and plaintiffs are co-sharers along with other co-sharers. It is pleaded that present suit has been filed for the benefit of other co-sharers also. It is pleaded that defendant was not inducted as tenant over the suit land at any point of time and defendant has also not any immovable property in the village. It is pleaded that defendant is trespasser over the suit land and plaintiffs have asked the defendant to vacate the suit land but defendant did not vacate the suit land despite request. Prayer for decree of possession as mentioned in relief clause of plaint is sought.
3. Per contra written statement filed on behalf of defendant pleaded therein that suit is not maintainable in present form and suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and further pleaded that plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct from filing the present suit. It is also pleaded that plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit and plaintiffs have also no cause of action against the defendant and plaintiffs have not come to Court with clean hands. It is denied that plaintiffs have any title over the suit property. It is pleaded that suit land was allotted to defendant under the H.P. Village Common Land and Utilization Scheme and allotment certificate has been issued by the Collector in favour of the defendant. It is pleaded that possession of suit land was also delivered to the defendant and in alternative defendant has become owner of suit land by way of right of adverse possession. It is pleaded that plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the suit. Prayer for dismissal of suit sought.
4. As per the pleadings of parties learned trial Court framed following issues on dated 12.6.1996:-
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover possession over the suit land? OPP
2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD
3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD
6. Whether the plaintiffs have got no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD
7. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands if so its effect? OPD
8. Whether the suit land has been allotted by the H.P. Government to the defendant as alleged if so its effect? OPD
9. Relief.
5. Findings of learned trial Court on issues Nos. 1 to 6 were in negative and against the plaintiffs and learned trial Court decided issue Nos. 7 and 8 in favour of the defendant and dismissed the suit filed by plaintiffs.
6. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court appellants have filed appeal before learned Additional District Judge Kangra at Dharamshala and vide Civil Appeal No. 24-N of 2000 titled Jarmej Singh and others vs. Raghubir Singh learned first Appellate Court held that suit h
