RAJ KUMAR RAJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Regular First Appeal No. 7 of 1970 arising out of Suit No. 11 of 1967. The appellant - original plaintiff - is the second son of late Raja Padam Singh, the ex-ruler of Bushahr State. He filed a suit on 18th Nov., 1964 principally against the Union of India and the Government of the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh for a declaration of his proprietary rights in about 1720 acres of forest land situate in Khatas Nos. 1and 2, Khataunis Nos 1 to 25 comprising 106 plots, both measured and unmeasured, bearing Khasra Nos. 1, 2, 6, 23, 30, 34, 44, 108, 218, 222, 309, 341, 409, 479, 606, 433, 241, 732/280, 736/394 and 728/402 of Chak Addu, tehsil Rampur, in the present district of Mahasu in Himachal Pradesh. He traced his title to the said lands to a Patta executed by his father on 14th Maghar 1999, Bikrami, i.e. 28th November, 1942 A.D., and to the Order No. 5158 of even date directing corresponding mutation changes. In the said suit Choudhary Gopal Singh and Co., a forest contractor, was added as pro forma defendant No. 3 but no relief was claimed against the said party. 'The said suit was filed on l8th November, 1964 in the Court of the Senior Sub Judge, Mahasu, but on the upward revision of the suit valuation for the purposes of court-fees and jurisdiction the plaint was presented to the High Court of Delhi, Himachal Bench, Shimla and was renumbered as Suit No. 11 of 1967. The said suit was tried on the original side of the High Court by Jagjit Singh, J. who by his judgment and order dated 6th April, 1970 substantially decreed the suit, in that, he upheld the appellant-plaintiff's claim of ownership in respect of Khatas Nos. 1and 2, Khataunis Nos. 1to 25 comprising 106 plots bearing Khasra Nos. 1, 2, 6, 23, 30, 34, 44, 108, 218, 222, 309, 341, 409, 606, 4 and 33 situate in Chak Addu without prejudice to the application, if any, of Sec. 27 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953. The contesting defendants Nos. 1and 2 preferred an appeal, being Regular First Appeal No. 7 of 1970, before the Division Bench of the High Court which came to be allowed on 31st December, 1977.

(2.) Under Section 1 of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, as from 15th August, 1947, two independent Dominions of India and Pakistan came to be set up. By virtue of Sec. 4 the Province of the Punjab as constituted under the Government of India. Act, 1935, ceased to exist and the same was reconstituted into two new Provinces of West Punjab and East Punjab. In S. 7(l) were set out the consequences of the setting up of the two Dominions, Paragraph (b) whereof said that 'the suzerainty of His Majesty over the Indian States lapses, and with it, all treaties and agreements in force at the date of passing of this Act between His Majesty and the rulers of Indian States'. The plaintiffs father Raja Padam. Singh having died in April, 1947, his elder son Tikka Vir Bhadra Singh born to his first wife Shanta Devi succeeded to the Gaddi under the rule of primogeniture but since he was a minor a council for the administration of Bushahr State was set up to mind the affairs of the State. On 15th April, 1948 an agreement of merger was signed whereby the Raja of Bushahr ceded to the Dominion of India 'full and exclusive authority, jurisdiction and powers for and in relation to the governance of the State'. A centrally administered unit of Himachal Pradesh came into being on that day. The agreement of lease dated 25th Sept., 1942 was Formality terminated by mutual agreement between the East Punjab Government and the Himachal Pradesh Administration on 1 st April, 1949.

(3.) While the forests of Bushahr were under the control and management of the Government of Punjab, Raja Padam Singh, the plaintiff's father, executed a document on 14th Maghar 1999, Bikrami (i.e. 28th Nov. 1942) whereby he bestowed upon the plaintiff and his mother Rani Sahiba Katochi land admeasuring about 1720 acres. This original document called the Patta was admittedly lost during the minority of the plaintiff, vide statement of counsel for defendants Nos. 1 and 2 dated 29th May, 1969. However, the facturn of the grant cannot be disputed as it has been referred to in the subsequent two grants executed by the plaintiff's father on 29th Phagun 1999, Bikrami (i.e. 11 th March, 1943 - Exh. P-2) and 24th Maghar 2003, Bikrami (i.e. 10th December, 1946 - Exhibit P- 1). These two -subsequent grants Exhibit P-1 and Exh. P-2 have been proved through the evidence of the scribe PW 1 Thakur Chet Ram. By the execution of the third grant dated 24th Maghar 2003, Bikrami, the half share granted to the Rani Sahiba Katochi under the first grant of 14th Maghar 1999, Bikrami, was transferred to the plaintiff with the Rani Sahiba's consent. Thus, the plaintiff became the sole grantee of the entire area of 1720 acres but as he was a minor his interest was looked after initially by his father who expired in April 1947 and thereafter by his mother Rani Sahiba Katochi as his natural guardian. After the execution of the first grant or patta the plaintiff's father made an Order No. 5158 of even date directing his revenue. officers to effect consequential changes in the mutation. Exh. P-6 is a copy of the mutation entry which contains the following endorsement: