DINESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four appeals (R. S A No. 192 of 1994, Dinesh Kumar v. State of H. P. and others; R S A. No 193 of 1994, Mansha Ram v. State of H. P. and others ; R S. A. No. 207 of 1994, Smt. Rattni Devi v. State of H. P. and others, and R. S. A. No. 227 of 1994, Rishi Ram v. State of H P. and others) are being disposed of by a common judgment as similar facts and substantial question of law arise in them. These are against the decrees and judgments dated 24 -5 -1994 passed by the District Judge, Hamirpur, whereby (he appeals of the respondent defendant, State of Himachal Pradesh, were accepted and the decrees and judgments passed by the Sub -Judge 1st Class, Hamirpur, impugned in each of the appeals were set aside. Hence the present Regular Second Appeals by the appellants -plaintiffs.

(2.) The dispute between the parties is in respect of land measuring 28 Kanals 4 Marlas comprised in Khasra No 124, situated in Tika Chukhniar, Tappa Garli, Tehsil Badsar, Distt. Hamirpur (hereinafter called the land in dispute). Admittedly the land in dispute was of the State of Himachal Pradesh and was in occupation of one Sh Bakshi Ram who, on coming into force of the H P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. 1972 thereinafter called the Act), acquired proprietary rights. Mutation No, 157 was also attested in his favour on 25 -7 -1987. Thereafter, said Bakshi Ram sold one -fourth of the land in dispute to each of the appellants -plaintiffs by registered sale deed in September, 1989 The mutations of sale were not attested in their favour on the ground that by virtue of proviso added to sub -section (9) of section 104 of the Act, proprietary rights in respect of the land owned by the Government cannot be conferred on the tenants occupying the said land This proviso was added by Amendment Act of 1987 which has been given retrospective effect. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants -plaintiffs filed separate civil suits which were decreed and mandatory injunction was issued in their favour directing the respondent defendant to attest mutations of sale in their favour. In appeal, the decrees and judgments of the trial Court were set aside by the District Judge.

(3.) This Court has heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The substantial question arising in these appeals is what is the effect of proviso to sub -section (9) of section 104 of the Act over the vested rights which have accrued to the persons from 21 -2 1974, when the Act had come into force to 14 -4 -1988, when the Amendment Act of 1987, came into operation though retrospectively from 21 -2 -1974.