JAISI RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present regular second appeal is maintained by the appellant against the judgment and decree, dated 09.06.2006, passed by the learned First Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 78 of 2004, whereby the learned First Appellate Court has modified the judgment and decree, dated 15.06.2004, of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hamirpur, H.P., passed in Civil Suit No. 60 of 1995.

(2.) The appellant, who was the plaintiff in the Court below (hereinafter referred as "the plaintiff"), maintained a suit against the State of Himachal Pradesh, respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant") when the defendant initiated proceedings under Section 163 of the Land Revenue Act on the basis of the revenue entries in their favour with respect to the land measuring 12 kanals, 2 marlas, as per the jamabandi for the years 1989-90, comprised in Khata No. 282 min, Khatauni No. 323 min, Khasra No. 1407/599, situated in village Daruhi, Tappa Bajuri, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as "the suit land").

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that as per the plaintiff, he was granted Nautor land (the suit land) by the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra, on 08.03.1972. The application of the plaintiff was forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra, to Divisional Forest Officer, Hamirpur for inquiry, as mandated under Kangra Nautor Rules. Divisional Forest Officer, Hamirpur, gave its recommendation that the suit land is fit for breaking and he had assessed the compensation for the trees etc. Afterwards, the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra, sanctioned Nautor to the plaintiff. Subsequently, the plaintiff deposited the requisite compensation for the trees, however, on 06.10.1975, to the utter surprise of the plaintiff, the mutation was illegally rescinded. The plaintiff challenged the revenue entries, which remained in the name of the defendant. As per the plaintiff, he is in continuous possession of the suit land without any interference and he has spent approximately Rs. 50,000/- for making the land cultivable and also spent Rs. 40,000/- for the construction of a house and cattle-shed thereon. Later on, defendants initiated proceedings under Section 163 of H.P. Land Revenue Act against the plaintiff with intent to illegally evict him. Therefore, the plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration that he is owner-in-possession of the suit land, as the suit land was granted to him as Nautor by the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra. The plaintiff also prayed for consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing him from the suit land and from demolishing his structures existing over the suit land.