IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 97 of 2009 Reserved on: 17.08.2023 Date of Decision: 04^th September,2023 Ramji Dass ....Appellant Versus State of H.P. & others.

....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approveod for reporting? No.

For the Appellant : Mr.K.D.Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Het Ram Thakur, Advocate For the R espondents : Mr.Anup Rattan, Advocate General h with Mr. Navlesh Verma, Additional Advocate General, Mr. R.P.Singh and g Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General, for Respondent No.1.

i Mr. Arun Sehgal, Advocate, for H Respondents No.2 to 4.

Rakesh Kainthla,Judge.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2008, passed by learned District Judge Bilaspur, H.P., vide which, the appeal filed by the appellant (the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court)was dismissed. (Parties _________________________

1. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a Civil Suit before the learned Trial Court for seeking a declaration thfat there is no path in Khasra No.4/1/2 and Bouri in Khasra No. 4/1/1, situated at Village Nihan, Pargna Tiun, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter to be referred as the suit land), with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants from digging the suit land, making the path and Bouri in it. The plaintiff also sought a declaration that the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, dated 28.12.1974, reducing the area by 1-5 Bighas in the suit land was bad as there was no path or Bouri on the spot and the plaintiff is an owner in possession of the suit land and remaining land comprised in Khasra No. 4/1/3, situated in Village Nihan, Pargna Tiun, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. A consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff was also sought. It was pleaded that the plaintiff is an owner in possession of the suit land. Learned Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Ghumarwin, sanctioned a Nautor to the plaintiff of the land measuring 8.11 Bighas bearing Khasra No. 64/59 on 24.09.1983. Defen.dants No. 2 to 4 filed a revision before the Divisional Commissioner Mandi, who reduced the area by 1-5 bighas of the suit land on the ground that the path and Bouri existed over the land allotted to the plaintiff. Plaintiff filed a suit seeking injunction but the suit was dismissed on 05.03.1987. Thre matter was taken to this Court and an injunction was issued restraining the defendants from interfering with the remaining land. Divisional Commissioner, Mandi acted upon the wrong report, which was prepared by the Revenue Authorities in league with defendants no. 2 to 4. There is no path in Khasra No.4/1/2 nor any Bouri in Khasra No. 4/1/1;

hence, the suit.

3. The suit was opposed by the State of Himachal Pradesh by filing a written statement taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability, jurisdiction, valid legal notice and cause of action, the suit being barred by res-judicata and the plaintiff being estopped to file the present suit by his act and conduct. The contents of the plaint were denied on merits.

However, it was admitted that the land measuring 8.11 bighas was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff. The Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, reduced the area by 1-5 big.has on the objection of village right holders because the land in question was a thoroughfare and a Bouri existed in the allotted land. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the Financial Commissioner, which was dismissed. He filed a writ petition before this Court, which was also dismissed. He filerd a Civil Suit before the Sub-Judge, First Class, Ghumar