GOPAL CHAND Vs. RAM SARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal has arisen out of the judgment and decree passed on 30/07/1982, by Additional District Judge, Salon and Sirmaur Districts at Solan, dismissing the appeal of defendants-appellants and thereby confirming the judgment and decree of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Nalagarh, dated 9/01/1980, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent.

(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit claiming a decree for declaration to the effect that he was in possession of land measuring (a) 46 kanals 15 marlas situate in village Rajpura, Tehsil Nalagarh and (b) 35 kanals 2 marlas situate in village Rangoowal in Tehsil Nalagarh as a tenant under defendants-appellants and that the order passed on 6/07/1977 by the Land Reforms Officer, Nalagarh, in proceedings initiated by defendants under S. 30 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Re-forms Act, 1972 (Act No. 8 of 1974) (herein-after referred to as the Act) was illegal, void, without jurisdiction and ineffective and in-operative upon his rights to remain in possession of the land and to enable him to acquire proprietary rights under the provisions of the Act and by way of consequential relief plaintiff prayed for grant of a decree for injunction restraining the defendants from causing any interference in his possession on the basis of the void order of Land Reforms Officer.

(3.) The basis of the suit was that the aforementioned land was owned and possess-ed by defendant-appellant No. 1 and plaintiff had been inducted as a tenant upon the same for the last more than 12 years on payment of rent. The land situate in village Rajpura had been gifted, on the basis of a registered deed of gift dated 7/09/1970, by defendant- appellant No. 1 in favour of his daughters defendants-appellants Nos. 2 and 3. The plaintiff continued in possession of the entire property as a tenant under the defendants but with a view to defeat his rights in acquiring proprietary rights under the provisions of the Act, defendant No. 1 with a mala fide intent by treating the gift to have been repudiated and considering himself to be the owner-landlord moved an application under S. 30 of the Act before the Land Reforms Officer seeking to resume the land as a disabled person incapable to cultivate the land and procured an order in his favour though provi-sions of S. 30 were not attracted in his case. According to the plaintiff, the Land Reforms Officer on erroneous assumption of facts and without complying with the provisions of the Act assumed jurisdiction not vesting in him and passed the order dated 6/07/1977, which was claimed to be illegal, void and without jurisdiction and not affecting his rights to have the benefit of acquisition of proprietary rights. It was alleged that neither defendant No. 1 was disabled, nor was he incapable to cultivate the land.