STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. MITHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE both the above titled Regular Second Appeals are arising from the same civil suit filed by the deceased Plaintiff, hence taken up together, for its decision.

(2.) RSA No. 349 of 1998 was admitted on 11.9.1998 on the following substantial questions of law:

(3.) THE brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the Khasra Nos. 376, 377, 378 and 379 measuring 2 -1768 hectares was assigned new Khasra No. 1215/1, measuring 5. bighas, during the settlement operation, was earlier 'Shamlat ' land. Later it vested into the State of Himachal Pradesh, by virtue of the H.P. Village Common Land (Vesting and Utilization) Act, 1974, in short 'the 1974 Act '. Plaintiff Mithan Singh was found in possession of the land aforesaid, as such proceedings under Section 163 of H.P. Land Revenue Act were initiated for his ejectment being an encroacher. Ultimately, order of his ejectment there -from was passed. The Plaintiff failed to get the relief in further appeal/revision from the Revenue Courts right upto the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), thus filed the suit against the State Appellant after serving a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking declaration to the effect that Khasra No. 1215 was owned by the proprietory body of village Karasa of which he was also one of the owner. The land aforesaid was partitioned amongst them and suit land fell in his possession and a residential house was constructed thereon. He made the suit land cultivable. Since it was recorded as 'Shamlat Deh Hasab Mal Guzari ', it vested in the State of Himachal Pradesh under the Act aforesaid. He was in possession of the suit land for the last about 50/60 years and possession was not taken over from him despite vestment, thus the Appellant had no right to eject him and alternatively pleaded adverse possession, and prayed that his ejectment order dated 23.9.1986 passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade/Tehsildar, Rohru (Defendant No. 3) is illegal and not binding on his rights, consequently sought the relief of permanent injunction.