AJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs - appellants filed a suit on the pleadings that the land measuring 1183 Kanal and 18 Marlas shown in the Jamabandi for the year 1945 -46 vide document Ex.P -5 and situated in village Ghmarath, Tappa Dhatwal, hereinafter referred to as "the suit land", was red as Shamlat Tika 2nd was declared as Shamlat Deh under Section 2(g) and vested in the Gram Panchayat free from all encumbrances under Section (1)(a) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act. 1961, herein - referred to as "the Punjab Act". On the coming into force of the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands (Vesting and Utilization) Act, 1971, herein -r referred to as "the Himachal Act", it vested in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The latter then tried to allot the said land to the defendants - respondents No.2 to 7 under me rules framed under the Himachal Act. But, the plaintiffs - appellants filed the suit in the year 1981 alleging that the suit land has been in their individual cultivating possession in accordance to the shares the Shamlat and they have been paying the land revenue thereof. It was also pleaded that the suit lard had been partitioned by the plaintiffs -appellants before 26.1.1950 as provided under the Punjab Act. Therefore, it was further pleaded that the suit land had not vested in the State either under the Punjab Act or under the Himachal Act and thus, the State has no right to allot it to the defendants/respondents No.2 to 7. By way of consequential relief, they prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/ respondents from interfering in their possession over the suit land in any manner.

(2.) The defendants -respondents in the written statement pleaded that the nit land was Shamlat Tika and thus vested in the State under the Punjab and [Himachal Acts, but denied that it was in the individual cultivating possession f the plaintiff -appellants in accordance with their share in the Shamlat. It was also denied that any land revenue was being paid to the State or the suit land was partitioned prior to 1950. It was the case of the defendants -respondents in the written statement that the suit land was validly vested in the State of Punjab and then in the State of Himachal Pradesh and the latter had every right to allot the same to the defendants -respondents No.2 to 7. Preliminary objections, to the effect that the suit is not valued for the purpose, of Court fee and jurisdiction, it is bad for non -jointer of necessary parties and non -issuance of the valid notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, were, taken.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues: - (1) Whether the suit is properly valued for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? O.P.P. (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction "as prayed for? Q.P.P. (3) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? O.P.D. (4) Whether there is non -joinder of necessary parties as alleged ? If so, its effect. O.P.D. (5) Whether the notice under Section 80 C.P.C. served on the defendant is not valid and legal ? O.P.D. (6) Relief.