RATTAN CHAND SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintained by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 1.6.2006, passed by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Civil Appeal No.144-P/XIII-2005, whereby the learned lower Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.2, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P, in Civil Suit No.103 of 2000, dated 17.8.2005, with the prayer to set aside the same and decree the suit of the plaintiff.

(2.) Briefly stating facts giving rise to the present appeal are that appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') filed a suit for declaration and possession of the suit land against the respondent/defendant (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant') alleging that he was allotted 'Shamlat land' in the year 1976-77, comprised in Khata No.70 min. Khatauni No.241 & 245 Khasra No.218, 670 & 671/1 measuring 0-30-47 hectares, situated in Mohal Nawalkar, Mauza Naura, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. The allotment was cancelled by the SDO (C), Palampur, vide order dated 25.7.1981, without any rhyme or reason, the order was challenged in the Civil Court and the order of S.D.O (C) was quashed by the Civil Court while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the State of Himachal Pradesh, maintained an appeal before the learned District Judge, Dharamshala, the same was also dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below was affirmed. On 18.9.1996, Addl. District Magistrate, Kangra, entertained an application of some of the residents of Village Naura, Tehsil Palampur, for cancellation of the allotment cancelled the allotment made in favour of the plaintiff. The said order of Addl. District Magistrate, who was earlier impleaded as defendant No.2 (and whose name was deleted) is in clear disobedience of the decree of Civil Court and without jurisdiction. An application under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC, was also filed against the Addl. District Magistrate, but it was dismissed by the Civil Court.

(3.) The suit was resisted and contested by the defendant by raising preliminary objections that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the case, suit is not maintainable, plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the suit and the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 CPC. On merits, it has been contended that the suit land was allotted to the plaintiff during the year 1976-77, but its possession was not delivered to him. Thereafter, the said allotment was cancelled by Addl. District Magistrate, exercising the powers of Commissioner, as there was representation of Gram Panchayat, Naura, with a prayer for the cancellation of allotment. There was no bar for the competent Revenue Officer, for cancellation of the suit land. Moreover, the plaintiff was an employee at the time of allotment of land and no possession was ever delivered to him.