STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. KALYAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal at the instance of the State of Himachal Pradesh is directed against the judgment dated 11.12.1992 passed by the District Judge, Una, District Una, whereby the appeal of the respondents -plaintiffs was allowed and the decree and judgment dated 20.9.1989 of Sub Judge (2) Una was set aside and the suit of the respondents -plaintiffs was decreed for declaration that they are owners in possession of the suit land and the revenue entries showing the State as owner and the mutation in question are wrong, illegal and void ab initio and not binding on the rights of the respondents plaintiffs and the appellant defendant is permanently restrained from interfering in any manner in the ownership and possession of the respondents plaintiffs over the suit land. The suit land is comprised of khasra No.977 measuring 2 kanals 1 Maria situated in village Raipur Sahora, Tehsil and District Una.

(2.) The case set up by the respondents plaintiffs in their plaint was that they are owners in exclusive possession as co -sharers of the suit land for more than 50 years evenprior to 1950 and have built their Abadi (Houses and cattle shed) for agricultural purposes over some portion of the suit land and rest of it has been under their cultivation since the times of their forefathers. It is also alleged that the suit land is not in excess of their share in the Shamilat Deh and is assessed to land revenue, therefore, it was exempt from vesting as provided in the Village Common Land law. It is also alleged that in violation of Village Common Land Law, mutation vesting the suit land in the name of the State of H.P. was sanctioned and thereafter revenue entries showing it as owner have been made and on the basis of wrong revenue entries, the officials of the appellant defendant started interfering in their possession over the suit land.

(3.) The appellant defendant resisted the suit on the preliminary objections, inter alia, that the suit was barred by limitation and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of Section 10 of the H.P. Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Act, 1974 (hereinafter called "the Act"). On merits, the case of the plaintiffs is denied. It is alleged that after the vestment of the suit land in the appellant defendant free from all encumbrances, the possession of the respondents plaintiffs is that of encroachers and proceedings under Sec. 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act are liable to be initiated against them.