PREM DUTT Vs. STATE OF H.P.
LAWS(HPH)-1997-4-33
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on April 21,1997

PREM DUTT Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF H.P. Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

DALIP SINGH VS. STATE OF H.P. [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

SURINDER SARUP,J. - (1.)The suit of the plaintiffs -appellants was partly decreed by the trial Court of Shri T.N. Vaidya. Senior Sub Judge, Solan on 17 -8 -1997 whereby a decree to the effect that they are owners in possession of the built up land of Khasra No. 408/186, Khasra No.428/186 measuring 10 was Khewat No.42 min Khatauni No.91 in consequence, a decree was also restraining the defendants from interfering in their ownership and Session over the suit land. Further a decree was passed prohibiting the Irfendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the land comprised in Khewat No. 42 Min Khatauni No. 84 to 92 till they are in session or till they are dispossessed therefrom after demanding possession of the land and are paid compensation, as assessed in accordance with the revisions of Section 3(3) of the Common Lands Act. It was further held that possession of the plaintiffs over the land is. not of owners. Rest of the claim of the plaintiffs -appellants that they are owners in possession of the suit land was dismissed because they are not its owners nor in exclusive individual possessions.
(2.)Against that judgment, the plaintiff -appellants went up in appeal because the suit was not decreed in toto and the State because the suit was partly decreed against it. The Court of Shri R. L. Khurana District Judge, Solan vide judgment and decree dated 27 -6 -1991 allowed the appeal of the State but dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff -appellant. Consequently, the judgment and decree of the trial Court passed partly in favour of the plaintiffs -appellants was reversed and their suit has been dismissed, hence the present second appeal.
(3.)The plaintiffs -appellants filed the suit on the pleadings that the suit and, fully described in the plaint and as per the details given in the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, was recorded as Shamilat Deh Hasab Rassad Jare Khewat and Makbuja Malkan came to be vested in the State of H.P. under the provisions of H. P. Village Common Lands (Vesting and Utilisation) Act, 1974 (hereinafter to be called as the Act). According to the plaintiffs, they are the owners and in individual cultivating possession of the land in dispute as Hissedars since the time of their forefathers and have never relinquished the possession of the same. The entries in the record of rights showing the land in dispute as Shamilat Deh are wrong and as such the land in dispute could net have vested in the State under the Act. It has further been pleaded that the mutations sanctioned in favour of the State are wrong and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. The defendant was served with a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. but without any result. Consequently they filed the suit giving rise to this appeal.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.