STATE OF H P Vs. GURNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since, both these appeals arise out of a common verdict pronounced by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, H.P., in Civil Appeal No. 20-NL/13 of 2002 and in Civil Appeal No. 33-NL/13 of 2002, hence, both are liable to be disposed off by a common verdict.

(2.) Rsa No. 324 of 2005 stands directed against the judgment and decree recorded by the learned First Appellate Court upon Civil Appeal No. 20-NL/13 of 2002, whereby, the aforesaid appeal preferred before it by the plaintiff/respondent herein against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court "stood allowed", whereas, appeal No. 442 of 2005 stands directed against the judgment and decree recorded by the learned First Appellate Court upon Civil Appeal no. 33-NL/13 of 2002, whereby, the learned First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred before it by the appellant herein "against" the judgment and decree pronounced by the learned trial Court, appeal whereof stood directed against adverse findings rendered against the State of Himachal Pradesh upon issues No.1 and 5.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant with the allegations that the plaintiff is owner in possession of land in suit measuring 3 bighas 4 biswas, comprised in Khasra No.1444/3 presently comprised in Khasra No.1843/1444 bearing Khewat/Khatauni Nos. 46 min/566 min situated in Village Bhatoli Kalan, Pargana Dharampur, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. The land in suit was allotted to the plaintiff by the State under the Provisions of H.P. Village Common Lands (Vesting and Utilization) Act, 1974 and the rules framed thereunder. The plaintiff had deposited the sale consideration with the Treasury and certificate was also issued in favour of the plaintiff and possession was delivered to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has spent a huge amount for making the land agriculturable and the land in suit was in peaceful and physical possession of the plaintiff. The Commissioner (ADM), Solan has cancelled the allotment of the plaintiff after a lapse of more than 9 years of passing of the orders of the Collector, Nalagarh, dated 9.9.1975 vide order dated 28.2.1984. The said order is without jurisdiction, therefore, is illegal, null and void. The defendant is threatening to take possession of the land in suit on the basis of the said order. So, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he was owner in possession of the land in suit and the order dated 28.2.1984 passed by the Commissioner (ADM), was illegal, null and void along with a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from taking forcible possession of the land in suit and in alternative a decree for possession has been claimed.