SUBHASH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge herein is to the judgment and decree dated 2.6.2004 passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 105 -N/XIII -2003, whereby the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court is affirmed.

(2.) The subject matter of dispute in the present lis is the land entered in Khata No. 192min, Khatauni No. 390min, Khasra No. 1211, measuring 0 -29 -98 Hectares, situated in Mauza Talara, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. In a nut -shell, the case of the appellant -plaintiff is that the suit land is 'Shamlat'. The further case of the appellant -plaintiff is that his father deceased Mangat Ram was inducted as tenant over the suit land by Gram Panchayat, Talara on payment of rent in the form of 'Chakota', therefore, by virtue of the operation of law i.e. H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, he acquired proprietary rights in the suit land and became owner thereof. The Collector under the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Land Vesting and Utilization Act, 1974 has, however, wrongly attested the mutation of the suit land in favour of respondent -defendant/State. The plaintiff, therefore, has been sought to be declared owner in possession of the suit land and the entries showing the defendant in possession thereof and attestation of mutation in his favour to be illegal, null and void and do not confer any right, title and interest in respect of the suit land upon him. Additionally, a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from causing any interference in the suit land or allotting the same to landless person(s) has also been sought.

(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant -State, its response is that the suit land prior to coming into being the Act was in the ownership and possession of Gram Panchayat, Talara. The same in the year 1975 has vested in the defendant -State as per provisions contained under Sec. 3 of the Act. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Sec. 10 of the Act. The mutation of the land is stated to be rightly attested and sanctioned in favour of the defendant -State.