STATE OF H.P. Vs. KALMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh (Defendant) against the judgment and decree dated 30.4.1994 passed by Additional District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, whereby the appeal filed by the Plaintiff was partly accepted, judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 29.6.1991 were set aside and the suit of the Plaintiff was decreed.

(2.) The facts which are relevant for the decision of the present appeal are that on 16.10.1987 Plaintiff-Respondent Kalmu had field a suit for declaration against the Defendant-Appellant State of Himachal Pradesh, with the allegations that the suit land measuring 102.18 bighas was coming in possession of the Plaintiff and prior to him, his predecessors-in-interest for the last more than 80 years and now the Plaintiff had become the owner of the same by adverse possession and that the revenue entries in favour of the Defendant-State of Himachal Pradesh were wrong. It was alleged that a piece of land out of the suit land was cultivated and the Plaintiff had planted fruit bearing trees thereon for the last 35 years. It was further alleged that in the year 1982-83 the Defendant-State had initiated proceedings under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act against the Plaintiff before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, who passed ejectment order dated 31.3.1984 against the Plaintiff and the appeal filed by the Plaintiff was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (C), Paonta Sahib and further appeal filed by the Plaintiff before the Divisional Commissioner met the same fate. It was alleged that the revenue Courts had not properly appreciated the case of the Plaintiff. It was accordingly prayed that the suit of the Plaintiff for declaration be decreed.

(3.) The Defendant-State of Himachal Pradesh filed written statement and denied that the Plaintiff was in possession over the suit land. On the other hand, it was pleaded that it was the Defendant who was in possession thereof and that revenue entries in favour of the Defendant were correct. It was alleged that in fact Government land measuring 15 bighas 13 biswas was encroached by the Plaintiff and ejectment order was passed against him under the provisions of Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. It was denied that the Plaintiff had planted fruit bearing trees.