UNION OF INDIA (UOI) Vs. SMT. KYARU ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction.

(2.) The Respondents filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the State of Punjab claiming grazing rights in certain forests situated in Tehsil Hamirpur in the former District of Kangra. The suit was decreed in regard to some of the forests on August 9, 1967. Subsequently in 1969 the Union of India and the Himachal Administration filed an appeal against the trial court decree. That appeal was dismissed on September 10, 1969, by the learned Additional District Judge, Kangra. The appeal was dismissed on the ground that the Union of India and the Himachal Administration had no locus standi when the suit had been decreed against the State of Punjab, and if the Union of India and the Himachal Administration intended to appeal against the trial court decree it was necessary that they should apply for being impleaded in place of the State of Punjab.

(3.) It seems to me that the learned Additional District Judge has erred. His attention does not appear to have been drawn to Sec. 92 of the Punjab Re -organisation Act, 1966, which by its own force substitutes the Union of India for the former State of Punjab in all legal proceedings pending on November 1, 1966. Sec. 92 of the Act provides that if the State of Punjab is a party to any legal proceedings with respect to any property, rights or liabilities subject to apportionment under this Act, the successor State which succeeds to, or acquires, a share in that property or those rights or liabilities by virtue of any provision of this Act shall be deemed to be substituted for the existing State of Punjab or added as a party to those proceedings, and the proceedings may continue accordingly. Plainly, an order of the Court was not necessary for substituting the successor State for the State of Punjab or for adding it as a party. That process is consummated by the statute itself. The learned Additional District Judge should have held that the Union of India was entitled to prosecute the appeal as successor to the erstwhile State of Punjab and should have proceeded to dispose of the appeal accordingly . In the circumstances, his judgment and decree must be set aside. It will be noted that by the enactment of the State of Himachal Pradesh Act, 1970, Himachal Pradesh became a State and as there is no provision in that Act corresponding to Sec. 92 of the Punjab Re -organisation Act, an order of the Court has to be made to add the State of Himachal Pradesh in the array of Appellants.