NIRMALA DEVI Vs. PYAR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD and gone through the record. Respondent Pyar Chand, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, filed a suit seeking declaration that he alongwith proforma-defendants Punnu and Kuldip Chand, who are related to him as his brothers and respondents No.2 and 3 herein, are the tenants in respect of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 100, 144, 158, 187 and 188, situate in Mohal Malnu, Mauza Punner, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, hereinafter called suit land, and that the order of Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Palampur, holding that out of the suit land, land bearing khasra Nos. 100, 144, measuring 0-30-22 hectares and a portion of land comprised in Khasra No.158, shown by min number 158/1, measuring 0-56-72 hectares, are in possession of the owners, i.e. appellants-defendants, is illegal and by way of further relief prayer was made for grant of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the appellants- defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff and proforma-defendants. It was alleged that from the very beginning the plaintiff alongwith proforma-defendants and prior to them their father was in possession of the suit land as tenant on payment of rent in the form of sharing of crop, but the appellants-defendants made an application to the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Palampur, some time in the year 1991-92 and obtained an order that out of the suit land, land bearing Khasra Nos. 100, 144 and 158/1 was not in possession of the plaintiff and proforma-defendants and on the basis of that order entries were changed in the revenue papers, showing the appellants- defendants as owners in possession. The order was alleged to be illegal and without jurisdiction, because under Section 104(4) of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act read with Part-V of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Rules, only the Land Reforms Officer, in his capacity as Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, could have passed an order determining the dispute whether a person recorded as tenant in the revenue papers was in fact a tenant or not.

(2.) SUIT was contested by the appellants-defendants. They raised various preliminary objections, besides contesting the claim on merits. It was alleged that the suit was not maintainable, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction, the plaintiff had no cause of action, suit was bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties, the plaintiff was ...3... estopped by his acts and conduct to file the suit, the plaintiff had no locus standi and the valuation of the suit for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction had not been done correctly. On merits, it was alleged that land with respect to which correction of entries had been ordered by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, was in possession of the defendants from the very beginning and the plaintiff and his brothers, impleaded as proforma-defendants, had never been in possession thereof.

(3.) BEFORE me, it has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that under Rule 29 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Rules, it is the Assistant Collector who has the jurisdiction to determine the question whether a person recorded as a tenant in the revenue papers is in fact a tenant or not and that, therefore, nothing is wrong with the order passed by the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Palampur, holding that the plaintiff and proforma-defendants are not the tenants in respect of the portion of the suit land.