STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. NIDHU
LAWS(HPH)-1997-4-51
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on April 08,1997

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Appellant
VERSUS
NIDHU Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

STATE OF H.P. VS. HUKAM CHAND [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

SURINDER SARUP,J - (1.)This second appeal is directed against the judgments and decrees of the two Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff has been decreed. It may be mentioned that the judgment and decree of the trial Court is that of Shri S. L. Sharma, Sub Judge 1st Class, Kangra dated 24.10.1989, whereas the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court is that of Shri M.R. Chaudhary, District Judge, Kangra Division at Dharamshala dated 07.08.1991.
(2.)Briefly the facts are that the plaintiff -respondent brought a suit for, declaration with consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction against the State of H.P. defendant - appellant on the pleadings that the land fully described in the plaint and the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, situated at Mohan Jhikli Ichhi, Mauja Ichhi.Roman, Tehsil and District Kangra is entered in the possession of the plaintiff as is clear from the jamabandi for the year 1980 -81. It has further been pleaded that land bearing Khata No. 145 min, Khatauni No. 170 min. 274 min, Khasra Nos. 498, 507 and 627, Kita 3 area measuring 2 Kanals 13 Marias situated at Mohal Jhikli Ichhi, Mauza Ichhi, Tehsil and District Kangra is entered in the name of the plaintiff -respondent in the column of possession as "Khud Kast" Makbuza as co -sharer and in the column of ownership the land is recorded as Shamlat Tika Hasab Rasad Malguzari. During the current settlement which took place in the year 1972 -73 though the entry of possession has been made in die name of the plaintiff not as a co -sharer but he had been shown in un - authorised possession with a view to eject him. This entry has been challenged by the plaintiff being illegal and not binding on the rights of the - .plaintiff. The plaintiff further averred that he being in possession as co -sharer before 26 -1 -1950 has obtained all die proprietary rights in respect of the suit land and that the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands (Vesting and Utilisation) Act is not applicable to the present case.
(3.)In the written statement, the State took up the preliminary objections that the suit is not maintainable in the present form; that the suit is bad or non -joinder of necessary parties; that this Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit; that the suit is time barred; mat no valid notice under section 80 C.P.C. was served upon the State and that the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction.


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