PREM SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, rendered on 2.6.2003, in Civil Appeal No. 117 of 2000, by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P., whereby, the learned First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, preferred by the plaintiffs/appellants, affirming the judgment and decree, rendered by the trial Court, on 31.8.2000.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the predecessor -in -interest of the appellants, namely, Budhu (the original plaintiff), instituted a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendant/respondent, on the allegations that he had been owner in possession of land, comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 47/51 min, Khasra Nos. 322/304/1, measuring 7 -2 bighas, situated in revenue estate Kothi, Pargna Rattanpur, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur. It is averred that the plaintiff had applied for allotment of the suit land in his favour by way of exchange to the State. The application of the plaintiff had been considered and allowed vide order dated 19.3.1990 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The plaintiff had given his land measuring 7 -2 bighas of revenue estate, Majher to the State. The plaintiff had deposited a sum of Rs. 16,350/ - as Nazrana for getting the suit land in exchange. After allotment of the suit land in his favour by way of exchange, the plaintiff had broken -up and cleared for cultivating the suit land. The plaintiff had spent a sum of Rs. 25,000/ - on the development of the suit land. The Financial Commissioner, H.P. vide order dated 16.8.1995, unauthorizedly and illegally, had cancelled the allotment of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff. The order dated 16.8.1995 of Financial Commissioner was wrong, illegal and liable to be set aside. The defendant/State was sought to be restrained from interfering with the ownership and possession of the plaintiff of the suit land by issuance of a decree of perpetual injunction. With these allegations, the plaintiff had instituted the suit in the learned trial Court on 8.2.1996.

(3.) THE plaintiffs/appellants did not choose to file the replication to the written statement of the defendant/respondent.