ANAND KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendants, claiming therein a decree for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are lessees(s) in possession and for setting aside the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur and Divisional Commissioner, Mandi dated 15.06.1990 and 16.06.1992 respectively vide which the allotment of the suit land has been cancelled as also for permanent prohibitory injunction. The suit of the plaintiff stood dismissed by the learned trial Court. In an appeal carried therefrom by the plaintiffs/appellants before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court dismissed the appeal, whereupon, it concurred with the verdict recorded by the learned trial Court. In sequel thereto, the plaintiffs/appellants herein, are driven to institute the instant appeal herebefore.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant seeking declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are lessee in possession of the suit land comprised in Khata/Khatoni No.31/488, khasra No.1298/394, measuring 31.54 sq. decimeters, situated in UP Muhal, Main Market, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. and for setting aside the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur and Divisional Commissioner, Mandi of 15.06.1990 and 17.06.1992, respectively, vide which the allotment of the suit land has been cancelled and further decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from changing the entry in the revenue record and from interfering in any manner whatsoever. It has been averred in the plaint that father of plaintiff No.4 and husband of plaintiff No.5 late Shri Sita Ram son of Kapura was allotted a commercial site against the award of old town, Bilaspur in Sector 6 of the main market under the scheme formulated for the purpose of the resettlement and rehabilitation of the Bhakra Dam Oustees and a lease deed was accordingly executed and Sita Ram has become its lessee and defendant has become lessor. It has been further averred that pursuant to the allotment of the land, the possession of the allotted land was handed over to the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and mutation thereof has already been sanctioned vide mutation No.162 of 19.6.1989. The Deputy Commissioner has wrongly 8 and illegally cancelled the above said allotment vide order dated 15.06.1990 which was challenged before the Divisional Commissioner but the same was also dismissed as having been not maintainable. Sit Ram, the above allottee died on 1.1.1996 and the plaintiffs have succeeded to his estate being the son of the widow. The defendant is stated to have no right, title or interest in the suit land and the plaintiffs are stated to be in possession of the suit land. The cause of action is stated to have arisen to the plaintiffs on 1.9.1998 when the defendant has express his inability to undone the cancellation of allotment. Thus, it has been prayed by the plaintiffs that the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and Divisional Commissioner may be declared null and void and they be declared lessee in possession of the suit land and defendant be restrained permanently from changing the nature of the suit land or interfering in the suit land through its agents and servants.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement. It has been pleaded that Kapura Ram father of Sita Ram was allotted plot No.210-B at Main Market, Bilaspur being Bhakra Dam oustee and he gifted this allotted plot to his son Sita Ram and in the year 1989, Sita Ram applied for exchange of his plot No.210-B with the suit land. However, it is further pleaded that said plot was not allotted as a commercial plot. It was only sanctioned in favour of Sita Ram in exchange but subsequently, the said exchange was cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal against that order before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi and the same was also dismissed. The orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner are stated to be legal and valid. It is further averred that joint inspection of the site was carried out by the Assistant Town Planner, Mandi, Secretary, Municipal Committee, Bilaspur and Assistant Engineer, PWD, Bilaspur and it was observed by them that it was not feasible to allot any plot in the suit land since the site is abutting the National Highway No.21 and the proposed activities in the shop would invite a trouble for vehicles as well as pedestrians and there was likelihood of choking of nallah during heavy rains and may endanger the adjacent construction. It is also averred that the suit land is not a created plot as per the allotment rules of the plots. As such, the suit land could not have been allotted without creation of the plots. The defendant is stated to have every right to cancel the said exchange and the same was accordingly cancelled after giving opportunity to the plaintiffs by the competent authority and the order of cancellation passed by the Deputy Commissioner and affirmed by the Divisional Commissioner are stated to be legal and binding on the plaintiffs.