MUNSHI RAM Vs. HANS RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present regular second appeal has been maintained by the appellant/defendant (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant') against the judgment dated 01.11.2004, passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 91 of 2002, whereby the judgment of learned Sub Judge 1st Class (II), Hamirpur, H.P., dated 29.06.2002, passed in Civil Suit No. 323 of 1997, was affirmed.

(2.) Tersely, the facts of the case, as per the plaintiff/respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') are that the plaintiff maintained a suit for declaration, wherein he has sought declaration that order dated 26.05.1997, passed by the Consolidation Officer, Hamirpur, in Case No. 35 of 1997, qua the land comprised in Khata No. 107, Khatauni No. 109, Khasra No. 10, measuring 2 kanals 7 marlas, situate in Village Badohra, Mouza Badohg, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit land') was passed fraudulently and the same is collusive in nature. The plaintiff has further alleged that the Consolidation Officer passed the order dehors the principle of natural justice, as such the same has no binding effect. Precisely, as per the plaintiff, he is owner-in-possession of the suit land and the defendant, in connivance with the Consolidation Officer, Shri Nathu Ram, got corrected Karukans of the suit land, which as per the plaintiff, was done fraudulently and without his notice. The act of the defendant was by suppressing material fact that the mutation of correction of Karukans of the suit land stood already rejected. It is alleged that the defendant, who is a retired revenue officer, and Consolidation Officer, Shri Nathu Ram, worked together. Shri Nathu Ram, Consolidation Officer, was posted as Patwari at the relevant time and he prepared Shajra Kishtwar of Village Badehra during the consolidation operation in 1980, so he must not have decided the correction application of the suit land, especially in absence and without notice to the plaintiff. The Consolidation Officer passed the order without fixing date of inspection and he wrongly proceeded the plaintiff ex parte. Lastly, it was alleged that under the veil of that wrong and illegal order, the defendant was trying to take forcible possession of the portion of the suit land, compelling the plaintiff to approach the Court for redressal of his grievances.

(3.) The defendant, by way of filing written statement, resisted the suit of the plaintiff. The defendants raised the preliminary objections of maintainability and jurisdiction. On merits, the defendant contended that the order dated 26.05.1997 of the Consolidation Officer, cannot be challenged in the Civil Court by filing a suit and further contended that the matter is exclusively triable by the Consolidation authorities in an appeal. He has contended that the Karukans had been rightly corrected by the Consolidation Officer and defendant is already in possession of his share of the land.