IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 432 of 2004 Date of Decision: 13^thSeptember,2023 Nand Lal ....Appellant Versus State of H.P. & Others ....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the Appellant : Mr. Mohan Singh, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr. Parshant Sen, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1.

Respondents No. 2 to 16 are ex parte.

gRakesh Kainthla,Judge (Oral).

The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 01.07.2004, passed by learned District Judge, Solan, H.P., vide which, the appeal filed by the present appellant (plaintiff before the learned Trial Court) was dismissed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

_________________________

1. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

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 that the p.laintiff and proforma defendants are owners in possession of the land comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 37 min/96 min, bearing Khasra No. 606/139min, measuring 2-0 bigha, situated in Village Anji Sunaran, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. as per Jamabandi for the year 1991-92. The lrand bearing Khasra No. 605/139 min measuring 0-6 bighas is part of the aforesaid land, the order dated 02.05.1956, passed in Mutation No. 199, by learned Assistant Collector 2^nd Grade, Kandaghat, order dated 26.08.1975, passed in Mutation no. 237 by Assistant Collector 2^nd, Kandaghat, order dated 28.10.1994, passed in an Encroachment Case bearing no. 16/13-A, of 1994, titled as State of H.P. vs. Nand Lal, passed by Assistant Collector 1^st Class, Kandaghat, order dated 31.05.1995, passed in a Revenue Appeal No.3-8/95, titled as Nand Lal vs State of H.P. passed by Sub Divisional Collector Kandaghat and order dated 05.05.1997, passed in a Revenue Revision No. 14/97, titled as Nand Lal vs State of H.P. are illegal, null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff and proforma defendants. A consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants from causing any inference with the suit land was also sought. It was pleaded that the land bearing Khasra No. 139, measuring 100- 1 bighas was owned by “SHAMLAT DEH HASAB RASAD. KHEWAT” and was possessed by “MAQBUJA MALKIN”. This land was assessed to land revenue. Village Anji Sunaran was part of Patiala State, which merged into Pepsu and thereafter into Punjab State. Now, it is a part of Himachal Pradesh. Punjab Village Common Land Vesting and Utilisationr Act came into force in the year 1961. Certain lands were exempted from vestment in the Panchayat under the said Act. The suit land was assessed to the land revenue and it was owned and possessed by the owners of the Village. Hence, t he land was exempted from vestment in the Gram Panchayat. This land was required to be reverted to the owners. Mutation No. 199, dated 02.05.1956, was attested behind the back Hof the plaintiff and proforma defendants and the same is not binding upon them. The predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants came into the physical possession of the land before 26.01.1950, as they were Khewatdars of Village Anji Sunaran and paying revenue to the State through Lambardar. The area of the suit land in their possession did not exceed their holding and the land could not have vested in the Gram Panchayat. The subsequent order of mutation No. 237, dated 26.08.1975, was mutated in favour of the State of H.P. and was also passed behind the back of the plaintiff. The provi.sions of H.P. Village Common Lands (Vesting and Utilization Act), 1974 were not complied with, since no notice was ever served upon the landowners to deliver the possession. The State initiated the encroachment proceedings under Section 163