BIDHI CHAND Vs. JAGDISH CHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.2.2005 rendered by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur in Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2003.

(2.) "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that the respondent -plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "plaintiff" for convenience sake) filed a suit for declaration etc. against the appellant -defendant, namely, Bidhi Chand and others and proforma defendants. According to the averments made in the plaint, plaintiff alongwith proforma defendant Nos. 8 to 12, as per the cause title of the civil suit, was owner in possession to the extent of their share of the land in question. No exchange was made by him, proforma defendants or their forefathers with defendant Nos. 1 to 7. No land situated in Tikka Balla was taken in exchange. There was no such Tikka in Tehsil Barsar. The revenue entries showing the names of defendant Nos. 1 to 7 as non -occupancy tenants of the land in question in lieu of the exchange of land located in Tikka Balla, Tappa Dhatwal without payment of rent were wrong and illegal. He alongwith proforma defendants were not bound by the said entries. He alongwith proforma defendant Nos. 8 to 12 was in continuous possession of the suit land since the time of their ancestors. Earlier their predecessors -in -interest were in possession of the land in dispute. Tikka Kothi was under the operation of settlement. The case was wrongly dismissed by the Naib Tehsildar (Settlement), Saloni Circle. They filed an appeal before the Assistant Settlement Officer (exercising the powers of Collector (Settlement), Dharamshala. The appeal was dismissed on 26.5.1998 wrongly and illegally. Plaintiff and proforma defendant Nos. 8 to 12 preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Mandi Division, which is still pending. Tikka Kothi was also under the operation of consolidation. Plaintiff and proforma defendants filed a petition under Sec. 54 of the Himachal Pradesh Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 with respect to the vague and false revenue entry in the revenue papers before the Director Consolidation. The Director Consolidation advised them to approach the civil court. Cause of action arose after the decision of the Settlement Collector dated 26.5.1998 as defendant Nos. 1 to 7 started causing interference and threatened to take possession of the suit property.

(3.) The suit was contested by defendant Nos. 1 to 7 filing written statement. Preliminary objections were taken. It was specifically pleaded that disputed property was in their exclusive possession from the years 1951 -52. They were cultivating and managing the land in question and paying the land revenue. Plaintiff or proforma defendants were not in possession of any part of the disputed land. The revenue record was correct. Plaintiff cannot challenge the entries existing in their favour after a period of 48 years. There is complete ouster of the plaintiff and his predecessors -in -interest. Defendants were in open, continuous and hostile possession of the suit land from the year 1951 -52 and have become owners of the land by way of adverse possession. Order passed by the various authorities cannot be questioned in the civil court. The civil court cannot go into the propriety or correctness of the orders passed by the consolidation authorities.