CHUNI LAL Vs. AJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant application, the applicant/appellant has prayed for placing on record copy of order dtd. 7/2/2013, passed by Land Reforms Officer in case titled Chuni Lal vs. Om Prakash and copy of "Jamabandi" for the year 2009-10 in respect of Khasra No. 507. Noticeably, the application for additional evidence was filed in the year 2015 but despite opportunities, respondent did not file any reply to the application.

(2.) The applicant/appellant has sought to place on record certified copy of order dtd. 7/2/2013, passed by Assistant Collector-cum-Land Reforms Officer, Jawali, District Kangra, H.P. in proceedings between the same parties which are before this Court in the instant appeal. In addition, a copy of Jamabandi for the year 2009-10 pertaining to suit land has also been sought to be produced, in the remarks column of which, an entry has been reflected to have been incorporated in pursuance to order dtd. 7/2/2013, passed by Assistant Collector-cum-Land Reforms Officer, Jawali, District Kangra. Both these documents are relevant and necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal, hence the application is allowed and both the above mentioned documents are taken on record in evidence. Since both the documents are per-se admissible, no formal proof is required.

(3.) The facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal are that the plaintiff filed a suit seeking relief of possession of suit land, comprised in Khasra No. 507, measuring 0/19/44 hects., situated in Mohal Dhasoli-Shikli, Mauza Dhasoli, Tehsil Jawali, District Kangra, H.P., on the premise that plaintiff was recorded as one of the co-owners of suit land and the possession of defendant over the same was without any right, title or interest. On the other hand, defendant alleged that the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 507 was part of old Khasra No. 247. Defendant further claimed that he was inducted as a tenant by the predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff in the entire area of land earlier comprised in Khasra Nos. 246 and 247. On coming into force of H.P. Tenancy of Land Reforms Act, the defendant acquired title over the same, save and except the portions of land resumed by land owners. As per defendant, mutation No. 340 dtd. 25/7/1981 was attested and at the time of such attestation, the proprietary rights were conferred upon the defendant only in respect of Khasra No. 246 and part of Khasra No. 247, whereas the mutation should have been sanctioned qua the whole of the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 246 and 247. Thus, entry of "Kabiz" of defendant in Khasra No. 507 in post settlement revenue records was termed to be wrong and illegal. Defendant had further averred in the written statement that he had already taken recourse to legal proceedings for correction of entries and the matter was sub-judice before revenue authorities.