GHULAM RASOOL Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave at plaintiff's instance assails the reversing second appellant judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in a suit for injunction against the State and one of its officers based upon possession.

(2.) The suit was filed in respect of two items of property - 6 kanals appertaining to survey No. 192 on the basis of possession from 1946 and 2.10 kanals in survey No. 626 on the basis of acquisition of title by purchase. The plaintiffs contended that they had raised plantations over both the lands. When the Block Development Officer started interfering with their possession, the plaintiffs gave notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the State and sued for injunction.

(3.) The trial Court as also the appellate Court came to find that plaintiffs had title to 2.10 kanals in survey No. 626. They also found that plaintiffs were in possession as claimed from 1946 in respect of 6 kanals appertaining to survey No. 192 and had raised plantations thereon. On these findings the trial Court decreed the suit and granted injunction against the State from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment of the property and that decree was affirmed in appeal. In second appeal the High Court came to find that the notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure had not been given to the Block Development Officer and, therefore, even if plaintiffs were owner of 2.16 kanals of land appertaining to survey No. 626, they could not obtain a decree against the public officer. While affirming the decree of the appellate Court in regard to this item of property against the State, the High Court reversed the decree and dismissed the suit as against the Block Development Officer for want of notice. In regard to the other item appertaining to survey No. 192, the High Court took the view that the plaintiffs were rank trespassers and their possession was, therefore, not available to be protected. The plaintiffs' suit in regard to this property was, therefore, dismissed.