STATE OF H.P. Vs. BELI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Himachal Pradesh has filed this second appeal aggrieved against the judgment of reversal. The suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration that they are owners in possession of the suit land with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their ownership and possession, was ordered to be dismissed by the learned Trial Court. On appeal by the plaintiffs/respondents, the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court stands set aside and consequently, the suit stands decreed as prayed for by the plaintiffs hence the State is in second appeal before this Court. The parties, here in after in this judgment, shall be referred to as plaintiffs and defendant.

(2.) Learned State counsel, while opening his address, contends that the suit land has rightly been held to be "Shamlat Deh" and validly came to vest in the State of Himachal Pradesh under the provisions of the H.P. Village Common Land (Vesting and Utilization) Act. It is sought to be contended that the plaintiffs, on the strength of their possession simplicitor, could not be held to be owners in possession of the suit land.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs, has, in reply, adopted the same line of reasoning as stands projected in the impugned judgment given by the learned first appellate Court. It is further stated by learned Counsel for the plaintiffs Ms. Sunita Sharma that the land in suit would not fail within the purview of "Shamlat Deh" as given in the Act.