BASO AND ORS. Vs. LAKSHMI DEVI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals arise out of the judgment and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge -II, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 60 -K/1999 decided on 26.11.2001 whereby learned Additional District Judge reversed the judgment and decree dated 23.4.1999 passed by learned Sub Judge -I, Dharamshala, District Kangra in Civil Suit No. 62 -A/97/90 and consequently decreed the suit as prayed for.

(2.) THE appellant is defendant. The plaintiff/respondent instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that the land comprised in Khata No. 58 min, Khatauni No. 107 min, Khasra No. 165 area 0 -04 -81 hectares jamai 0 -29 Ps as per jamabandi for the year 1986 -87 situated at Mohal Thamba Mauza Rehloo, Tehsil and District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit land') was obtained by the plaintiff on 'Chakota' in the year 1962 from Gram Panchayat, Rehloo alongwith his brothers on payment of yearly rent of Rs. 10/ - and continuously thereafter made the land fit for cultivation and plaintiff/respondent is paying rent as 'Gair Marusi tenant' under the defendant No. 2 i.e. State Government and the defendant/respondent No. 1 has got no right, title or interest with the land in question. It was also averred that the revenue entry effected in pursuant to mutation No. 41 regarding allotment and thereby change of ownership in favour of defendant No. 1 was contrary to law and liable to be set -aside.

(3.) THE defendant No. 2 filed separate written statement in which preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the suit, jurisdiction, locus -standi and non -service of notice under Section 80 CPC were raised. On merits, it was averred that during the settlement operation which took place in Mohal Thamba, Mauza Rehloo during 1971 -72, the land owned by the Panchayat was vested under the State of Himachal Pradesh vide mutation No. 19 dated 5.8.1975 inclusive of the suit land. The plaintiff had not objected at the time of attestation of the mutation which had been done in the presence of respectable persons of the locality. The plaintiff had not even preferred any appeal before the competent revenue authority. It was lastly stated that since the State of Himachal Pradesh had become complete owner of the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 165, it had allotted the same to defendant No. 1 vide mutation No. 41 dated 30.1.1979.