PREM SINGH Vs. GOBINDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 18.4.2005 passed by the District Judge, Bilaspur, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed and the Collector was directed to consider the question afresh and decide the same within six months, keeping in view the observations made in the judgment.

(2.) THE facts which are relevant for the decision of the present appeal are that Gobindu, plaintiff, had filed a suit for declaration claiming himself to be owner in possession of the suit land and that the said land was washed away during floods in 1976, whereupon he applied for exchange of the government land comprised in Khasra No. 322/304/1 belonging to the State Government. It was alleged that the Patwari Halqua in connivance with defendant No.2 committed mischief and prepared wrong Tatima in respect of the land comprised in Khasra No. 320/304, which was a Dhank and was incapable of cultivation and it was further alleged that the said Patwari gave demarcation and possession of the land comprised in Khasra No. 322/304/1 at the spot and the plaintiff was still in possession of the said land. It was further alleged that the plaintiff made the said land fit for cultivation by putting hard labour and money. It was alleged that later on defendant No. 2, being a big landlord, in connivance with the revenue staff, illegally had managed to get his land exchanged in lieu of land comprised in Khasra No. 322/304, which was sanctioned in favour of defendant No. 2. It was alleged that the plaintiff came to know of the said illegal allotment and moved an application before the Assistant Collector not to implement the illegal order and the complaint was also filed before the Deputy Commissioner. It was alleged that the plaintiff approached defendant No.1 to accept the change of mutation in his favour and also approached defendant No. 2 not to interfere in his possession. It was further alleged that the plaintiff be declared owner in possession of Khasra No. 322/304/1 measuring 3-1 Bighas, in place of Khasra No. 320/304 measuring 3-1 Bighas, as shown in the Tatima prepared by the Patwari and the mutation No. 156 be cancelled and the same be restored to the State of H.P. and the defendants be restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 322/304/1. It was further prayed that the order dated 19.3.1990 be declared null and void and defendant No. 2 be restrained from interfering in Khasra No. 304/286/3.

(3.) AFTER hearing both sides and perusing the record, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, holding that the plaintiff was not owner in possession of Khasra No. 322/304/1 and was not entitled to any permanent prohibitory injunction. Aggrieved against the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the District Judge. The learned District Judge, after hearing both sides and perusing the record, vide judgment and decree dated 18.4.2005, accepted the appeal of the plaintiff, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and the Collector was directed to consider the question afresh and decide the same within six months, keeping in view the observations made in the judgment. Aggrieved against the same, defendants No. 2 and 3 filed the present Regular Second Appeal in this Court.