MADHO RAM Vs. MAKHOLI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the above noted appeals are directed against the judgment and decree, rendered on 1st September, 2003, in Civil appeals No. 19 -D/XIII -02 and 20 -D/XIII -02, by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby the learned First Appellate Court dismissed the appeals, preferred by the appellants/defendants and affirmed the judgment, rendered on 29.12.2001 by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class (II), Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. These appeals are being disposed of by a single judgment as they arise out of a common judgment.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the plaintiff had instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is owner in possession of suit land comprising Khewat No. 88, Khatauni No. 125 and Khasra No. 764/362, measuring 0 -10 -11 Hectares of Jamabandi 1994 -95 of Mohal Thamba, Mauza Ghiana Kalan, Tehsil Dharamshala and the defendants have no right, title or interest to interfere in the suit land in any manner whatsoever in the ownership and possession of plaintiff with consequential relief of permanent injunction.

(3.) THE State, defendant No. 1 therein, filed the written statement taking preliminary objections of locus -standi, estoppel, maintainability, suit is time barred, no cause of action, suit is bad for non -joinder of necessary parties, suit is not properly valued, suit is bad for issuance of legal notice under Section 80 CPC and the Court has no jurisdiction under Section 10 of the H.P. Village Common Lands Act, 1974. On merits, it is pleaded that the plaintiff was allotted land from Khata No. 114, Khatauni No. 164, Khasra No. 352/2 measuring 0 -10 -11 Hectares situated in Mohal Thamba Mauza Khaniara under the H.P. Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Act, 1974 on 14.11.1981. However, the plaintiff got the land mutated in his name vide mutation No. 175 of 23.10.1994 after the gap of 15 years in the year 1995. He started cultivating the land and on 17.6.1995, the residents of the village came to know about the alleged allotment and they by way of representation to the Deputy Commissioner objected to the alleged allotment as the land is used as a path and other common passages. Secondly, three 'Kuhals' pass through the said suit land which irrigates the agricultural land of the Mohal and the land is also used by the children of the Primary School, Thamba, Barnala, Kaned as a play ground. On such representation, a detailed inquiry was got conducted by the Tehsildar Dharamshala who found the objection of the residents are well founded and submitted her report to Deputy Commission on 14.7.1995. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated against the plaintiff by the Commissioner and after hearing the plaintiff and objectors, allotment of the suit land was cancelled with direction to allot some other suitable land to the plaintiff. Objections qua jurisdiction, cause of action, limitation, non -joinder of necessary parties, valuation and maintainability were also raised.