STATE OF H.P. Vs. KISHAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and I have gone through the records of the case. This appeal is directed by the appellant -defendant State against the judgment and decree passed by District Judge, Hamirpur, dated 15 -2 -1990 in Civil Appeal No. 144 of 1986, whereby while dismissing the appeal of the respondents -plaintiffs, under Issue No. 1 plaintiffs have been held to be in possession of the suit land in or about in the year 1950 and findings on Issue No. 3 have been reversed as a whole. While holding so, it was further ordered that these modifications do not result in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs and the appeal of the plaintiffs was dismissed with the said modifications, parties are being referred to as plaintiffs, defendant No. 1 State and proforma defendants hereafter in this judgment.

(2.) Plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction wherein they prayed that defendants be restrained from interfering in their peaceful cultivating possession as owners or dis -possessing them except in due course of law over the land measuring 6 Kanals 10 marlas, as detailed in the plaint, hereinafter referred to as the suit land. This suit was contested by defendant -State as well as by predecessors -in -interest of respondents No. 13 to 17 original defendant No. 1 Amaru.

(3.) It is not in dispute that defendant -State is recorded as a owner of the land in question and it is a Shamlat land within the meaning of provisions of HP. Village Common Land (Vesting and Utilisation) Act 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, prior to coming into force this Act since the area where the suit land is a situate formed a part of earstwhile state of Punjab as such it was covered under the provisions of Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961. The case of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land was that since the land in question had been partitioned amongst themselves and the owners were in possession of the same which was assessed to land revenue, in these circumstances, it was further pleaded that the suit land was never vested in the Panchayat under the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 because whole of the shamlat land of Taraf Sidhran was partitioned to them (plaintiffs). Since the plaintiffs have never been dis -possessed, therefore, there was no question of the suit land having been allotted to Amaru original defendant No. 1 who had since died during the pendency of the proceedings and is represented by respondents No. 13 to 17. It seems that after the coming into force of H.P. Common Village Land (Vesting and Utilisation) Act, 1974 hereinafter referred to as the Act, the land in question was allotted by the State -defendant in favour of Amaru. It was in this background that the suit came to be filed by the plaintiffs.