RADHEY SHYAM Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a regular second appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff under section 100 C.P.C against the judgment and decree, 11.7.2003, passed by the learned Additional District Judge Sirmour at Nahan, vide which he allowed the appeal filed by the respondent/State and set-aside the judgment and decree, dated 4.7.2002, of the learned Senior Sub Judge Sirmour at Nahan, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment Yes. filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction as against the respondent, hereinafter referred to as the defendant. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the land comprised in khasra No. 4372/3207 measuring 11-1 bighas was purchased by the plaintiff for valuable consideration of Rs. 16,000/- from one Budhi Singh vide registered sale deed dated 29.6.1992 and mutation No.2058 was also attested on 24.12.1992. It was alleged by the plaintiff that he is the owner in exclusive possession of the same. It was also alleged that the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff namely Budhi Singh had executed a lease deed in favour of one S.S. Sethi which was cancelled vide review order dated 15.7.1991 by A.C.,IInd Grade. Defendant-State initiated the proceedings under Section 118(3) of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act against the said S.S. Sethi and final order was passed by District Collector on 20.12.1994, whereby the suit land stood vested in the State of H.P. The plaintiff moved a review application before the District Collector which was dismissed on 25.11.2000 on the ground that the review petition was not moved within 90 days of passing of the impugned order. The plaintiff alleged that he had acquired the knowledge about the passing of the order by the District Collector only in November, 1998 and that the said order vesting the suit land in State of H.P was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff and therefore, since the defendant is interfering in the possession of the plaintiff on the basis of the said order, hence suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff.

(2.) Defendant took up various pleas in regard to maintainability, jurisdiction, limitation etc. On merits, it was pleaded that the plaintiff in connivance with Budhi Singh and S.S. Sethi and revenue staff purchased the suit land from the said Budhi Singh during the pendency of proceedings under Section 118(3) of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act despite the fact that S.S. Sethi was non-Himachali and non-agriculturist and accordingly mutation was reviewed by A.C. IInd Grade and he held that lease agreement was in violation of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. It was alleged that the plaintiff purchased the suit land in order to vitiate the proceedings under Section 118 of the H.P. Tenancy of Land Reforms Act pending against S.S. Sethi. It was thus pleaded that the District Collector rightly dismissed the review petition of the plaintiff.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were settled by the learned trial Court: