Romesh Verma, Judge (Oral).

1. The present petition arises out of the order as passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi, on 12.06.2025 in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 6 of 2025, whereby the appeal preferred by the present petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed and the order as passed by the learned Civil Judge, Chachiot at Gohar, District Mandi, H.P. dated 31.01.2025 was affirmed, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for grant of injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC was dismissed. Whether approved for reporting?¹Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Chachiot at Gohar for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction. It was averred in the plaint that the consolidation proceedings started in Muhal Chail/51, Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi, H.P. in the year 1989. Defendants No.1 to 3 in connivance with the consolidation authorities filed separate applications for partition of land on 06.03.1992. The Consolidation Officer in league with defendants No.1 to 3, without the consent and without granting any opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 5 as also without taking into consideration the actual physical and joint possession of the plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 5 in equal shares, clubbed the suit land with other land from separate khewat for partition wrongly and illegally.

3. As per plaintiff, the Consolidation Officer vide orders dated 08.06.1992 passed in applications No. 57/92 and 56/92 filed by defendants No.1 to 3, clubbed the suit land for partition whereby they have been shown to be cosharers with defendants No.6 to 9 wrongly and illegally. As a matter of fact, defendants No.1 and 2 were neither co-owners in Khewat No.19/33 nor in total Khewat No.19 and were not even in possession of the suit land as mentioned in the plaint. The consolidation authorities, vide its order dated 8.6.1992 passed in application No.57/92, have allotted Khasra No. 209/2 measuring 0-2-18 bighas to defendant No.1 in one khata and allotted Khasra No. 209/1 measuring 0-1-14 bighas, Khasra No. 212 measuring 0-6-18 bighas and Khasra No.226, measuring 0-2-5 bighas in one khata jointly to defendants No.1 and 2 and the above said allotment was incorporated in Misal Hakiyat Consolidation Muhal Chail/51. As per the plaintiff/petitioner, the consolidation officer has wrongly and illegally allotted the suit land to defendants No.1 and 2 without summoning the plaintiff and defendants No.4 to 6 and without hearing them. The order dated 08.06.1992 is also not in conformity with the scheme framed as also the provisions of H.P. Consolidation Act and Rules, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.

4. Further, it has been averred that when the plaintiff came to know about the said order dated 08.06.1992, he filed revision petition under Section 54 of the Act before the Additional Director Consolidation of Holdings, H.P. However, the same came to be dismissed on 24.09.1997. Therefore, declaration was sought that the order dated 08.06.1992 passed in partition application No. 57/92 by the Consolidation Officer, Sundernagar is wrong, illegal, null and void and not in conformity with the provisions of H. P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971. Further, it was prayed that the declaration be issued by declaring order dated 24.09.1997 passed by the Additional Director Consolidation of Holding, H.P. in revision petition No. 17/94 to be wrong, illegal, null and void. It was prayed that the revenue entries showing defendants No.1 and 2 as owners in possession of suit land be declared as wrong, illegal, null and void and the plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 5 are joint owners in possession of suit land to the extent of ¼ shares each. Further, a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction was sought.

5. The su