STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. RAMJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals were admitted for hearing on the following question of law : Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in view of the bar created by Section 10 of the Himchal Pradesh Common Lands Vesting and Utilisation Act, 1974 ?

(2.) Not only the question of law but also the facts in the three appeals are almost same and similar on which similar findings have been recorded by the two Court below. Respondents in the appeals are the plaintiffs.

(3.) Plaintiffs filed three separate suits claiming decree for declaration that they had become owner of the suit property and the orders passed by Sub-Divisional Collector ordering their eviction were illegal, null and void and without jurisdiction. By way of consequential relief a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction was claimed restraining the State from dispossessing them from the suit property. This declaration with consequential relief of injunction was prayed by alleging that the concerned Gram Panchayats, in whom the land stood vested had inducted the plaintiffs as tenant over the suit land through resolution passed by it and ever since the plaintiffs have remained in occupation of the property as tenant under the Panchayat. It was further alleged that on coming into force of the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilisation Act, 1974, here-in-after referred to as the Act, all shamlat lands including the suit land stood vested in the State and thus the plaintiffs, who were in occupation of the property as tenants under the Gram Panchayat became Chakotadars under the State Government. Since the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land as Chakotadar on coming into force of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 and the Rules framed thereunder, therefore, they have become owner thereof, thereby extinguishing all rights, title and interest of the State Government. Accordingly, the orders passed subsequently by the Sub-Divisional Collector-Nalagarh ordering the plaintiffs' ejectment from the suit property are null and void and without jurisdiction since they have become absolute owner of the property.