Point of Law: Defendant had also specifically averred that he had taken recourse to legal proceedings under provisions of H.P. Land Revenue Act and H.P. Tenancy of Land Reforms Act for correction of revenue entries.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

CMP No. 4436 of 2015

By way of instant application, the applicant/appellant has prayed for placing on record copy of order dated 7.2.2013, passed by Land Reforms Officer in case titled Chuni Lal vs. Om Prakash and copy of “Jamabandi” for the year 2009-10 in respect of Khasra No. 507. Noticeably, the application for additional evidence was filed in the year 2015 but despite opportunities, respondent did not file any reply to the application.

2. The applicant/appellant has sought to place on record certified copy of order dated 7.2.2013, passed by Assistant Collector-cum-Land Reforms Officer, Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. in proceedings between the same parties which are before this Court in the instant appeal. In addition, a copy of Jamabandi for the year 2009-10 pertaining to suit land has also been sought to be produced, in the remarks column of which, an entry has been reflected to have been incorporated in pursuance to order dated 7.2.2013, passed by Assistant Collector-cum-Land Reforms Officer, Jawali, District Kangra. Both these documents are relevant and necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal, hence the application is allowed and both the above mentioned documents are taken on record in evidence. Since both the documents are per-se admissible, no formal proof is required.

RSA No. 625 of 2009

By way of instant appeal, appellant has assailed judgment and decree dated 5.11.2009, passed by the learned District Judge (1), Kangra at Dharmshala, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 80-J/08, whereby judgment and decree dated 2.6.2008, passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jawali, District Kangra, in Civil Suit No. 116/04, was affirmed.

2. Parties hereafter shall be referred by the same status as they held before learned trial Court. Respondent herein was the plaintiff and appellant herein was the defendant.

3. The facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal are that the plaintiff filed a suit seeking relief of possession of suit land, comprised in Khasra No. 507, measuring 0-19-44 hects., situated in Mohal Dhasoli-Shikli, Mauza Dhasoli, Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra, H.P., on the premise that plaintiff was recorded as one of the co-owners of suit land and the possession of defendant over the same was without any right, title or interest. On the other hand, defendant alleged that the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 507 was part of old Khasra No. 247. Defendant further claimed that he was inducted as a tenant by the predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff in the entire area of land earlier comprised in Khasra Nos. 246 and 247. On coming into force of H.P. Tenancy of Land Reforms Act, the defendant acquired title over the same, save and except the portions of land resumed by land owners. As per defendant, mutation No. 340 dated 25.7.1981 was attested and at the time of such attestation, the proprietary rights were conferred upon the defendant only in respect of Khasra No. 246 and part of Khasra No. 247, whereas the mutation should have been sanctioned qua the whole of the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 246 and 247. Thus, entry of “Kabiz” of defendant in Khasra No. 507 in post settlement revenue records was termed to be wrong and illegal. Defendant had further averred in the written statement that he had already taken recourse to legal proceedings for correction of entries and the matter was sub-judice before revenue authorities.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed following issues :-

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for vacant possession of the suit land, as alleged? OPP.

2. Whether the defendant has become owner of the suit land after the enforcement of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act? OPD.

3. Whether the plaintiff is stopped by his act and conduct from filing the present suit, as alleged? OPD

4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

5. Relief.”

Issue No.1 was decided in affirmative and remaining issues were decide