STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. CHINTA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against common judgment, decree dated 18.12.1997 passed by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 87-N/XIII-1997 and cross-objection No.107-N/XIII-1997 affirming judgment, decree dated 23.8.1997 passed by learned Sub Judge (1), Nurpur in Civil Suit No. 391 of 1992 decreeing the suit of the respondents partly holding that respondents are in possession of the suit land as Hissedar and revenue entry showing them to be in possession as Kabaz is wrong. The appellant has also been restrained from interfering in the possession of the respondents on land measuring 0-32-63 HM more specifically described in the operative part of the judgment of the trial Court.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that Wakil Singh, predecessor- in-interest of respondents 1(a) to 1(e) and respondents No.2 to 7 had filed a suit that they are owners in possession of land measuring 0-32-63 HM described in the plaint. THE entry showing them as Kabazan is wrong, illegal. THE suit land originally comprised in Khasra Nos.252/187 min, 253/187 min, measuring 8 Kanals and 7 Marlas was recorded as 'SHAMLAT TIKA HASAB RASAD MALGUZARI' and in possession of the respondents as HISSEDAR prior to the year 1935-36. THE predecessor-in-interest of the respondents applied for regular sanction for breaking up this land and Deputy Commissioner granted Nautor in the year 1920 in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. THE family was joint as such family jointly cultivated the land. THE suit land was lateron recorded in the ownership of Village Panchayat in the year 1962-63. THE Panchayat having come to know the change had written to Deputy Commissioner for correcting the said entry. Tehsildar Nurpur informed that the entry would be changed by way of necessary mutation but nothing was done. Lateron, State of H.P. was substituted in the column of ownership and the respondents were shown as Kabaz Hissedaran which entry is against law and factually incorrect. In these circumstances, the respondents had filed suit for declaration etc.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of provisions of H.P.Village Common Lands Vested and Utilisation Act, 1974 (for short 'Act'). It has been submitted that the suit land had rightly vested in the Gram Panchayat under the Punjab Act and lateron in the State under the Act. The two courts below have misread oral and documentary evidence in partly decreeing the suit of the respondents. The appellant is the owner of the suit land by virtue of the Act and, therefore, the respondents do not have status of Hissedar with the appellant in the suit land. The trial court has erred in giving a decree in favour of the respondents of Hissedar possession of the suit land alongwith other reliefs. The learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment, decree and has submitted that the findings returned by the two courts below emerge from the evidence on record. There is no merit in the appeal.