SEWAK RAM Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellants against the Judgments and Decrees of the Courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff- appellants was dismissed by the trial Court and the appeal filed by them was also dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge.

(2.) THE learned Addl. District Judge while dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiff- appellants had found as a fact that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that they were in actual cultivating possession of the suit land.

(3.) FURTHERMORE , while dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs it was found by the trial Court that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to go into the question as to whether the suit land had vested in the State of Himachal Pradesh or not, in view of the jurisdictional bar created by Section 10 of the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands and Utilisation Act, 1974. However, the learned Addl. District Judge had held that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present suit. In my opinion, the finding given by the learned Addl. District Judge that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present suit cannot be accepted, in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Keshav Ram and others vs. State of H.P. and others, RSA No.530 of 2005 decided on 8.11.2005, in which after considering the entire law on the subject it was held by this Court that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try and decide the suit with regard to the prayer for declaration etc., unless the plaintiffs are able to show that the orders passed by the Collector etc. were illegal and void. Thus the finding of the learned Additional District Judge that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present suit is contrary to law and is accordingly reversed and it is held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present suit.