GEETO Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure was admitted on the following substantial question of law:

(2.) The suit was resisted and contested by the defendant-State raising preliminary objections by filing written statement with respect to the maintainability of the suit, service of notice, lack of cause of action and also jurisdiction. Further the locus-standi of the plaintiff has also been challenged.

(3.) On merits, adverse possession is denied and it is contended that the plaintiff manipulated her entry as non-occupancy tenant with respect to khasra No. 26 measuring 2 biswas in connivance with the revenue staff. As a matter of fact, the suit land was vested in the Gram Panchayat under the provisions of Punjab Common Land (Regulation) Act and after coming in to force the H.P. Common Lands (Vesting and Utilization) Act, 1974, the State became its owner. The plaintiff has been trying to take benefit of wrong entry made in the revenue record, hence a prayer was made to dismiss the suit.