Proprietary rights under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act do not vest automatically in a tenant if the landowner is entitled to land resumption under Section 104(1); such landowners must follow a mandatory inquiry process, and challenges to revenue orders must be filed within one year.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.3.2008, passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which the judgment and decree dated 31.3.2006, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division-II) Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned trial Court for convenience).

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court seeking a declaration that he is the owner in possession of the suit land described in para. 1 of the plaint, review dated 14.3. 2000 of Mutation No. 344, already attested on 14.3.1997 based on LR-V, File No.1255, decided on 23.3.1999, is the result of fraud, misrepresentation and collusion, which has no bearing on the rights of the plaintiff. A consequential relief of Permanent Prohibitory Injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land was also sought. It was asserted that the plaintiff is the non-occupancy tenant of the suit land who became the owner after the commencement of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act . A Mutation No. 345 was attested on 14.3.1997 to this effect. The defendants obtained an order in File No. 1255, dated 23.3.1999, in the plaintiff’s absence and got the mutation reviewed on 14.3.2000 in collusion with the revenue official. Hari Ram, the predecessor in interest of the defendants, had not filed any application in LR-V. He was not entitled to resume the land because he was already in possession of more than 15 kanals of land. The defendants started interfering with the possession of the plaintiff on the basis of the order. Hence, the suit was filed to seek the relief mentioned above.

The suit was opposed by the defendants by filing a written statement taking preliminary objections regarding lack of cause of action, jurisdiction and maintainability, the suit having not been properly valued for Court fees and jurisdiction, the suit being barred by limitation, and the plaintiff being estopped to file the suit by his act, conduct and acquiescence. It was admitted that Hari Ram, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, was recorded as the owner and the plaintiff was recorded as a tenant, and Mutation No. 344 was attested in the plaintiff’s favour on 14.3.1997. It was asserted that this mutation was correctly reviewed on 14.3.2000. Mutation Nos. 448 and 449 were based on the order passed in Case No.2124, decided on 23.3.1999, titled Hari Ram Vs. Gorkhu etc. The order was correctly passed by the revenue authorities, and there was no question of any collusion. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred to determine the question raised by the plaintiff. Hence, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

A replication denying the contents of the written statement and affirming those of the plaint was filed.

The following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court on 7.3.2003: -

1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land as alleged? OPP.

2. Whether mutation No.344 is result of fraud and misrepresentation and liable to be declared null and void, as alleged? OPP.

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP.

4. Whether the plaintiff has cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPP.

5. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD.

6. Whether the suit is not legally maintainable? OPD.

7. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD.

8. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of the court fee and jurisdiction? OPD.

9. Whether the act, conduct and acquiescence of the plaintiff is bar to the present suit? OPD.

10. Relief.

The parties were called upon to produce the evidence, and the plaintiff