Reportable/Non-reportable IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA ON THE 8th DAY OF JULY, 2022 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No. 122 OF 2007 Between:-

CHANDU RAM SON OF SHRI TITU, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SULTANPUR PARGNA SACH, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT CHAMBA HP.

….APPELLANT (BY MR. N.K. THAKUR, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR. DIVYA RAJ SINGH, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA-2.

2. THE COLLECTOR, CHAMBA, DISTRICT CHAMBA, HP.

..RESPONDENTS (MR. KUNAL THAKUR, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)

Reserved on: 01.07.2022 Decided on: 08.07.2022 __________________________________________________________________

This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the Court passed the following:-

J U D G M E N T Appellant/plaintiff (for short ‘plaintiff’) filed Civil Suit No. 74 of 2003 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chamba (for short ‘trial Court’) seeking following reliefs:-

“1. Decree for declaration to this effect that change of ownership right in favour of defendants vide mutation No.1196 dated 28-10-94 and subsequent revenue entries regarding 1 and measuring 1.18 Bighas comprised in Khasra No.349f Kh/kh. No.286/337 situated in Mohal Sultanpur Parg, Sach Tehsil and District Chamba is wrong, illegal, null and void upon the rights of plaintiff. t

2. In alternative Decree for possession of land comprising of Khasra No.349 but if on the basis of Wong mutation, entries, the plaintiff is dispossessed during pendency of suit and not found in possession, in such eventuality Csuit for possession of land measuring 118 Bighas comprised in Khasra No.349 Kh/kh. No.286/337 as recorded in the jamaband for the Year 1991-92 si tua ted in Mohal Sultanpur Parg. Sach Tehsil and District gChamba-HP.

3. Any other relief to which the plaintiff may be found H entitled under the law.”

2. Learned trial Court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff and relief in the following terms was allowed:-

“15. As sequel to my findings on issues No. 1 to 7, suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants declaring change of ownership right in favour of the defendants vide mutation No. 1196 dated 29-10-1994 and subsequent entries in favour of defendants to be illegal, null and void and not binding on plaintiff. It is hereby ordered that SDO (C), Chamba before passing order of review shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the plaintiff and thereafter he would pass an appropriate order with regard to modification, or cancelling allotment in favoPur of the plaintiff under the .P. Nautor Land Rules, 1968. As there is no iota of evidence that plaintiff has been dispossessed during the pendency of the suit relief of possession is declined and suit to this extent is partly dismissed. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A decree sheet be drawn and the file, after its needful be consigned to recordst.”

3. The respoundents-defendants herein (for short ‘defendants’) aossailed the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court before the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2006 (for short ‘First Appellate Court’). Learned First gAppellate Court allowed the appeal of the defendants and idismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 20.01.2007.

4. By way of instant appeal, a challenge has been laid by the plaintiff to the judgment and decree dated 20.01.2007 passed by learned 1st Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2006.

5. This appeal was admitted by this Court on

24.04.2008 on the following substantial questions of law:-

1. Whether there has been misreading of evidence oral as well as documentary by the learned appellate Court?

2. Whether the allotment/Patta issued in favoPur of the plaintiff, Ex. P.4, could have been cancelled without proving or establishing any breach of terms and conditions of the grant?

6. I