DALIP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed on June 23, 1979 by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi allowing the appeal of the defendant and setting aside the judgment and decree passed on July 31, 1976 by the learned Senior Sub -Judge, Mandi whereby the suit of the plaintiff for grant of a decree for declaration to the effect that he had become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession was decreed* The plaintiff -appellant has sought reversal of the decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi and for restoration of the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

(2.) This being an appeal under para 32 of the Himachal Pradesh Courts Order, 1948, the evidence will have to be appreciated by this Court. The facts which emerge from the pleadings of the parties are as under.

(3.) On March 31, 1953, an application was moved by the plaintiff for grant of 7 -0 -15 bighas of land by way of nautor comprised in khasra No. 945 situate within the revenue estate, Majhethal in Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi. On May 21, 1955, the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi granted the said land by way of nautor on payment of Rs. 70 as nazrana. The plaintiff was put into possession of the said land. Through mutation No, 291 attested on May 29, 1956, effect was given to this grant in the revenue records. While breaking open the nautor land the plaintiff appears to have occupied the adjacent land also for which proceedings under section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act were initiated against him on March 1, 1957 for his ejectment from the land unauthorisedly occupied by him. On April 20, 1957, a statement (copy Ex. DL) was made by the plaintiff before the Tehsildar, Mandi asserting that he is not in possession of any other Government land except the land granted to him as nautor. He further stated that in case he is found to be in possession of excessive land he is prepared to vacate the same. On April 22, 1957, objections were filed by the plaintiff against his ejectment. What ultimate order was passed in the said proceedings cannot be ascertained from the present record. However, on August 27, 1957, the plaintiff move an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi with a prayer for correction in revenue records by showing his possession on 7 -0 -15 bighas of land which had been granted to him by way of nautor. The plaintiff thereafter was shown to be the owner and in occupation of 7 -0 -15 bighas comprised in khasra No. 945 as shown in the tatima (copy Ex. DC).