Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - (1.) The appellant is the plaintiff, who has lost before both the learned Courts below and aggrieved against the judgments and decrees so passed against him, has filed the instant appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The parties shall be referred to as the 'plaintiff' and 'defendant'.
(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant on the ground that he is owner in possession of the land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 77/111 (old), Khasra No. 13/1 (old), 348 (new), measuring 4-15 bighas, situated in Village Sai Fardya, Pargna and Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H. P. (hereinafter referred to as the suit land). It was averred that the defendant was the owner of the suit land prior to 30.11.1978 and on that day the land was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff by the Tehsildar, Sadar as he had applied for the same as landless person and thereafter a Patta was issued to the plaintiff on 30.11.1978, on the basis of which, mutation was attested on 27.4.1979. Since the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land, therefore, he has made improvements over the same by spending huge amount of money by raising construction of a house. However, one Anant Ram S/o Sh. Jiunu Ram, resident of Village Oel, Pargna and Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. had assailed the order of Tehsildar made in favour of the plaintiff by filing a revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur on 12.2.1980 on the ground that the suit land had already been sanctioned in his favour and as such, there was duplicacy in allotment. The Deputy Commissioner without verifying the factual position on the spot cancelled the allotment made in favour of the plaintiff without affording an opportunity of hearing and even otherwise no reasons were assigned in the order. It was claimed that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was, therefore, illegal and time barred and had no effect on the allotment already made in favour of the plaintiff. It was claimed that even though the land in favour of the plaintiff stands cancelled, the revenue entries changed in the name of the defendant, yet the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land and, therefore, the defendant cannot interfere in his peaceful possession and he cannot be evicted forcibly.
(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant by filing written statement wherein preliminary objections qua maintainability, cause of action, res judicata, limitation, locus standi, valuation, non-joinder of necessary parties and jurisdiction etc. were raised. On merits, it was averred that the suit as filed is not maintainable as it is hit by the principle of res judicata as the plaintiff had earlier filed Civil Suit No. 50/1 of 1981 decided on 22.05.1984 by the then Senior Sub Judge, Bilaspur. An appeal preferred against the same was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Bilaspur on 10.08.1989 and such material facts were concealed from this Court. It was further averred that the suit land was allotted to the plaintiff but was subsequently cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner as the plaintiff was an employee and was working as Chowkidar on workcharge basis in the H.P. State Electricity Board at that time and was earning more than Rs.3,000/- per month and his father was already possessing the land in his own name and was alive. Even otherwise, the land sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff was already sanctioned in favour of Anant Ram , as such, the allotment in favour of the plaintiff was cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner.;