PADAM DEV Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment as they arise out of the same judgment and decree dtd. 9/1/2009, passed by the Court of learned District Judge Solan, District Solan, H.P. in Civil Appeal No 35/S/13 of 1984/102-S/13 of 1986-84, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh through Collector Solan, District Solan, H.P. Versus Shri Brij Mohan & others.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeals are that a suit for declaration was filed by one Shri Brij Ballab Singh against Gram Panchayat, Dharampur and others, to the effect that he and defendants No.2 and 3 were owners in possession of the land measuring 337 bighas 14 biswas to the extent of 1/3rd share, situated in village Dharampur (Badholi) and relief of permanent injunction for restraining defendants No.4 to 6 from interfering with their possession upon the suit land was sought. According to the plaintiff, the grand-father of the plaintiff purchased about 37 bighas of land in Village Dharampur from one Mst. Jakhu alongwith her share in the Shamlat land in the month of June, 1911, vide registered sale deed for a consideration of Rs.700.00. A mutation to this effect was attested in favour of the grand-father of the plaintiff, namely, Shri Chuhar Singh. Smt. Jakku was in physical possession of the land to the extent of 1/6th share, which was prior to the sale. Chuhar Singh remained in possession thereafter and after his death, the landed property including the share in the Shamlat Deh was inherited by plaintiff's father, namely, Shri Harsaran Dass, who remained in possession thereof as owner till the year 1942. After the death of Harsaran Dass, plaintiff and defendant No.3 succeeded to the property and were now the owners in possession. On 12/8/1956, vide mutation No.80, Shamlat land was mutated in the name of Gram Panchayat, Dharampur, under the provisions of Pepsu Village Common Land Act. According to the plaintiff, the mutation was attested at the back of the plaintiff as also his brother (defendant No.3) and besides the interest of the plaintiff, even the interest of defendant No.2 in the Shamlat Deh was extinguished by way of the said mutation attested on 12/5/1956. According to the plaintiff, he and defendants No.2 and 3 were in actual physical possession of the suit land and according to him the vesting of the ownership rights thereof in the Gram Panchayat and subsequently in the State of Himachal Pradesh was bad.

(3.) The suit was contested by the State on the grounds that the plaintiff and defendants were out of possession of the suit land and the same was Shamlat land which rightly vested in the Gram Panchayat and later in the State of Himachal Pradesh.