LEKH RAM Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both these Regular Second Appeals, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) Both these Regular Second Appeals have been directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.11.1998 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? . Yes passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No.54 of 1990 and 64 of 1990.

(3.) Material facts necessary for the adjudication of these Regular Second Appeals are that the predecessor-in- interest of the appellants-plaintiffs, namely, Sh. Durga filed a suit in the court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Ghumarwin on 20.2.1988 for declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 1546/848 measuring 1-3 bighas situated in village Kot, Pargana Ajmerpur, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur and the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and Financial Commissioner were without jurisdiction and also prayed for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as `the defendants' for convenience sake) from interfering in his possession. He has alleged that the suit land was granted to him as Nautor by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Ghumarwin vide order dated 8.9.1972. He has alleged that defendants Jagdish Chand and Sita Ram had filed a revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur against the grant of Nautor and the Deputy Commissioner reviewed the order of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) and cancelled the Nautor. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. He reversed the order of the Deputy Commissioner and confirmed the order of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) dated 8.9.1972. Defendant No.2, Jagdish Chand filed an appeal before the Financial Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner partly cancelled the allotment on 4.6.1982. The plaintiff filed a review petition before the Financial Commissioner. The same was dismissed by him on 15.1.1988. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing separate written statements. The defendant-State has denied the contents of plaint except that Nautor was granted in favour of the plaintiff. However, the same was cancelled by the Financial Commissioner. According to the reply filed by the State, Financial Commissioner was competent to modify and cancel the grant of Nautor. It is further alleged that the Patta was issued and the plaintiff was bound by the terms and conditions of the Patta. He has constructed a small cowshed over the suit land adjoining to the school with malafide intention. The State has supported the orders passed by the Financial Commissioner. Defendant No.3 has filed separate written statement. He has alleged that the plaintiff had obtained the grant of Nautor by concealing the material facts and the possession was never delivered to him. Defendant No.4 Sita Ram has also filed separate written statement. On merits, he has denied the contents of plaint and has stated that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property as the same was being utilized by the villagers and the Middle School, Kot. It was further stated in the written statement that the Nautor was cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner after visiting the spot on 27.3.1980 and the order was valid. The land was required for play ground of the school and there was no other suitable land available. The plaintiff has filed the replications to the written statements filed by the defendants. The trial court framed issues on 19.12.1989. The trial court decreed the suit preferred by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs-appellants (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs for convenience sake) on 29.5.1990 and declared that the order of the Deputy Commissioner and Financial Commissioner dated 4.6.1982 and 15.1.1988, respectively were wrong and illegal. The plaintiff was declared owner in possession over the suit land and the defendants were restrained permanently from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. Defendants, i.e. Sita Ram and State, preferred separate appeals bearing Civil Appeal No. 54 of 1990 and 64 of 1990 against the judgment and decree dated 12.11.1998 of the learned trial court on 13.7.1990 and 3.11.1990, respectively. Learned District Judge allowed both the appeals and the judgment and decree of the learned trial court dated 29.5.1990 was set aside. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeals by the plaintiff.