DINESH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment, decree dated 15.06.2009 passed by Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, in Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2008, affirming judgment, decree dated 27.08.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. II, Mandi, in Civil Suit No. 38 of 2001.

(2.) The appellants were plaintiffs. The further facts of the case are that the appellants had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunction on the grounds that they are owners in possession of the land comprised in Khasra No. 2702/1465, 2705/1466, measuring 161.53 square metres, situate in mauza Sain, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi. Adjoining to the said land is the land comprised in Khasra No. 1469/1, 1467, 1468, kitas 3, total measuring 443.53 square metres (hereinafter referred to as 'suit land') which is recorded in the ownership and possession of State of Himachal Pradesh. But on the spot the suit land is in possession of the appellants qua which ejectment proceedings under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act were instituted against appellant No. 1. It has been stated that due to heavy rain fall on 09.08.1997 and 10.08.1997 flood water entered in the building situate on the land and caused extensive damage thereto. The predecessor -in -interest of appellants requested respondent No. 1 to construct a retaining wall for the protection of their house, but no retaining wall was constructed. In these circumstances, predecessor -in -interest of the appellants constructed a protection wall by spending Rs. 60,000/ - and since then the appellants through their predecessor -in -interest are in possession of the aforesaid land.

(3.) THE suit was contested by respondents 1 to 3 by filing written statement. It has been stated that proceedings under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act against appellants have been initiated. The suit land was/is in their possession which had been given to Hanogi Mata Temple Trust on lease by the Director of Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, vide letter dated 17.03.2001 for construction of an inn for the attendants of the patients living below poverty line. It was pleaded that Court has no jurisdiction in view of Section 171 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act. The remaining contentions of the appellants were also denied.