STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. DEVKI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that respondents -plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they have become owners in possession of the land measuring 5 Bighas 4 Biswas situated in village Sunkhi, Pargana Bagi, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 49/98, Khasra Nos 251/27 and 28 min. as per jamabandi for the years 1987 -88 by lapse of time and that the defendants appellants have no right, title or interest in the suit land. According to the plaintiffs, this land was mortgaged with their predecessors by Smt Parwati and others named in para 2 of the plaint for Rs.. 225 vide mutation No. 72 dated 22 -2 -2001 B. K, and was attested in favour of Lal Chand, mortgagee. After the original mortgage, the mortgagors raised additional mortgage money of Rs. 1,775 on this very land vide mutation No 130 dated 14 -6 -1952. Since the land was SHAMLAT DEH it merged in the local Panchayat tinder the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and thereafter under the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). However, possession remained with the predecessor -in -interest of the plaintiffs at the time of filing of the suit. According to the plaintiffs, the appellant -defendent stepped into the shoes of the mortgagors, This suit was contested and resisted by the appellant -defendant. Amongst other pleas, pleas of jurisdiction, suit being barred by time etc were also raised. Creation of mortgage and attestation of mutations of mortgage as well as correction thereof was also admitted in the written statement. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues : -

(2.) All the above issued were decided in favour of the plaintiffs and the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed. The appeal filed by the defendants appellants before the lower appellate Court also met the same fate, hence this appeal

(3.) Shri M L Chauhan, learned Assistant Advocate General has raised the plea of jurisdiction in support of his appeal and has referred to section 10 of the Act of 1974, which is reproduced hereinbeiow for ready reference : - "10. Bar of jurisdiction -Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no order made by the Collector or the State Government or any officer authorised by it, as the case may be, shall called in question by any Court or before any Officer or authority."