LAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dtd. 2/12/2022, passed by learned Additional District Judge-II, Solan, vide which the appeal filed by appellants (plaintiffs before learned Trial Court) was dismissed and the judgment and decree dtd. 11/9/2018, passed by learned Civil Judge (Court No.2), Solan was upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter referred to in the similar manner in which they were arrayed before ld. Trial court for convenience).

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiffs filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court, seeking a declaration that the plaintiffs being estate holders are owners in possession of the land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 13 min/15, Khasra Nos. 1782, 89/83, 85, measuring 48/5/0 bighas, situated at Mohal Laghech, Tehsil and District Solan, vide Mutation No.410, (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) and the vesting of the suit land in the State of H.P. is wrong, illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. A decree of permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land, damaging it in any manner whatsoever or interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs was also sought. It was pleaded that the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs were estate holders of Mohal Laghech. They were recorded owners in possession of the suit land and were paying the land revenue to the extent of their shares in Shamlat land. The revenue entries showing the estate holders in occupation of the suit land in the years 1974-75 and the suit land having vested in the State of H.P. are bad. No notice was served upon the estate holders as required under the H.P. Village Common Land Vesting and Utilization) Act, 1974, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). No opportunity for a hearing was given to the estate holders. The vestment in favour of the State of H.P. is wrong, null and void and not binding upon the rights, title and interest of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs continued to be in cultivating possession. The defendants have no right over the suit land. The defendants are interfering with the suit land; hence, the suit was filed to seek reliefs mentioned above.

(3.) The suit was opposed by filing a written statement taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability, locus-standi, cause of action and jurisdiction, the suit being bad for non-joinder/mis-joinder of parties, and the suit being barred by limitation. The contents of the plaint were denied on merits. It was asserted that the suit land is recorded as Charand. It never remained in the individual cultivation of the plaintiffs or their predecessors. No land revenue was paid by the plaintiffs to the State of H.P. regarding the suit land. The suit land had rightly vested in the State of H.P. after the enforcement of the Act. The mutation was attested after following due process. The name of the State Government was rightly recorded as the owner. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred to grant any declaration regarding the vestment; therefore, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.