STATE OF HP Vs. SUKRU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a regular second appeal filed by the appellant under Section 100 of the CPC against the judgment and decree, dated 19.1.1996, passed by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, vide which the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 17.5.1995 of the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Dharamshala, was dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent as plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction that he was the tenant of the land comprised in Khasra Nos.324 and 325, as detailed in the plaint, and had been conferred proprietory rights under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. He alleged that he was inducted as a tenant in the years 1970 and 1972 and he broke the land and made it fit for cultivation. The Revenue Officer sanctioned mutation No.41 of extinguishment of Patta in the absence of the plaintiff and against law and facts for which the Revenue Officer had no jurisdiction. The plaintiff alleged that he was in possession and has become owner and hence the suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff.

(3.) The defendant/State denied the allegations and took up preliminary objections in regard to the maintainability, jurisdiction, cause of action etc. On merits, it was pleaded that the plaintiff was not a tenant of the suit land and as such no proprietory rights under Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act could be conferred upon him. The plaintiff was allegedly a Pattadar in the year 1970-72 and was not inducted as a tenant and as such provisions of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act are not applicable to the case.