LAWS(HPH)-1996-1-28

MANGAT RAM Vs. STATE OF H.P.

Decided On January 10, 1996
MANGAT RAM Appellant
V/S
STATE OF H.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant filed a suit for declaration and injunction in respect of land measuring 3 Bighas 17 Biswas (hereinafter referred to as the suit land). According to the appellant, the suit land was allotted to him under the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Rules, 1975, which was framed under the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Act, 1974 as well as the rules framed thereunder. This allotment was cancelled by the Additional District Magistrate, Solan exercising the powers of Commissioner vide Ext. P -l on 25 -10 -1985. Ground for cancellation was that the appellant at the relevant time was not a landless person within the meaning of section 2 (c) of the Act ibid read with section 8 (1) (b) thereof in addition to the fact that admittedly he was working in telephone exchange, though temporarily and his salary was Rs. 200 per month. The order, Ext P -l was challenged by the appellant and he prayed for a decree to the effect that he was owner in possession of the suit land and the defendant has no right, title or interest in the suit land as also the order dated 25 -10 -1985 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Solan, exercising the powers of Commissioner is illegal, void, invalid, mala fide, ultra vires and non -est and as such inoperetive on the rights of the appellant qua the suit land. By way of consequential relief, a decree for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from dispossessing and interfering in any manner with his possession over the suit land was also prayed for.

(2.) This suit was contested and resisted by the respondent, amongst other pleas, on the ground that the appellant had obtained the land by misrepresenting the facts as he was not entitled for such allotment under the Act ibid, rules framed thereunder as well as the scheme of 1975 framed by the State Government in respect of the land which was a lotable pool under section 8 (I) (b) of the said Act. According to respondent, the plaintiff has no cause of action, the jurisdiction of the Court was disputed and it was further pleaded that the appellant has alternate remedy under the Act ibid. Lastly, it was pleaded that the suit is bad for want of notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure Although the allotment of suit land was admitted by the respondent, but it was pointed out that the Additional District Magistrate, Solan exercising the powers of the Commissioner was competent to cancel the same and the order dated 2540 -1985 (Ext. P -l) has been rightly passed by him According to the respondent, the suit was liable to be dismissed

(3.) On the aforesaid pleadings, the parties went to trial on the following issues: -