STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH COLLECTOR, UNA, H.P. Vs. RAM PARKASH, SON OF DINA NATH, R/O VILLAGE TAKARLA, TEHSIL AMB, DISTRICT UNA AND OTHERS H.P. AND ORS. ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE TAKARLA, UP MOHAL, DHANDRI, TEHSIL AMB, DISTRICT UNA (HP)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2010, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Una, District Una, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 76 of 2008.

(2.) Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment No. Material facts necessary for adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that respondent No. 1 -plaintiff, Ram Parkash (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff' for the sake of convenience), filed a suit against the appellant -defendant (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant' for the sake of convenience), seeking declaration to the effect that the land detailed in the plaint, as entered in Jamabandi for the year 1996 -97, situated in Village Takarla, Mauza Dhandari, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P., was coming in possession of the plaintiff, as non -occupancy tenant on payment of annual chakota/rent. The revenue entries of the suit land as in illegal possession of kabjan, i.e., possession in cultivation column of revenue record and the order dated 29.8.2003, passed by Assistant Collector 1st Grade to the extent of non -incorporating the name of plaintiff in the revenue record as non -occupancy tenant was absolutely wrong and illegal. According to him, earlier the suit land was owned and possessed by Gram Panchayat, Takarla. He was inducted as non -occupancy tenant by the Gram Panchayat in the month of June, 1970 on the basis of annual chakota/rent of Rs.64.25/ - per year. He was coming in possession over the suit land on payment of rent. According to him, the tenancy was never terminated nor determined by any lawful authority. The plaintiff has never relinquished his tenancy or ejected therefrom. However, in the first week of January, 2003, the plaintiff came to know that the revenue entries qua the suit land were wrongly recorded in cultivation column as kabjan against the actual and factual position on the spot. He applied for correction of revenue entries before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Kangra at Dharamsala. The application was forwarded to the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade -Cum -Tehsildar (Settlement) Barsar. The Assistant Collector, 1st Grade -Cum -Tehsildar Settlement after making a detailed inquiry, found the claim of the plaintiff to be genuine and correct and also found the plaintiff in possession by way of cultivation as non -occupancy tenant. The revenue entries and order dated 29.8.2003 of Assistant Collector 1st Grade to the extent of dismissing the application, according to the plaintiff, are wrong, false and illegal. According to the plaintiff, these entries and order of the Assistant 1st Grade, have no effect on the rights, title and interest of the plaintiff in the suit land. In the garb of above situation, in the 3rd week of November, 2003, the Halka Patwari, Kanoongo and Tehsildar, Amb started threatening the plaintiff to leave his possession or they would take forcible possession of the suit land. It is in these circumstances, the plaintiff has filed the suit.

(3.) ON 15th March, 2004, the learned trial Court has directed to serve the General Public by way of publication in the 'Hindi Danik Tribune'. The same was published, however, no appearance was put in on behalf of the General Public. In these circumstances, the General Public, i.e., defendant No. 2 in the original suit, was proceeded ex parte.