SANJAY SAINI Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal stands directed against the concurrently recorded verdicts, of, both the learned Courts below, whereby, they dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, wherein, he claimed rendition, of, a decreeto the effect that the order, of, 25. 3. 1997 rendered by the District Collector, Bilaspur, H. P. , whereunder, he directed, for, resumption, of possession of suit land measuring 2532. 02 sq. meters, being hence declared to be illegal, void, contrary to the judgment and decree pronounced by the learned Additional District Judge Bilaspur, upon Civil Appeal No. 171-B/13 of 1986/85. Being aggrieved therefrom, the plaintiff/appellant herein concerts to assail, it, by preferring an appeal before this Court.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that, the original plaintiff Sh. Mangat Ram, now represented by appellant, filed a suit for declaration, possession and mandatory injunction as against the defendant. It is averred that he filed a civil suit which was decided on 29. 1. 1985 by the learned Sub Judge, Bilaspur and the plaintiff was held to be tenant of the suit land. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, Bialspur, modified the judgment and decree to the extent that the plaintiff was held to be tenant in possession, but it was held that he cannot become owner in view of the provisions of Section 104 of the H. P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. It was further alleged that the defendant can not interfere in peaceful possession of the plaintiff except by the process of law. It was alleged that the defendant issued notice to the plaintiff for resumption of the land and the plaintiff filed the reply also. The Collector vide his order dated 25. 3. 1997 ordered to resume the possession of the suit land and further issued warrant of possession. It was alleged that the said order is malafide and the plaintiff cannot evicted under the law. Hence the suit filed by the plaintiff.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, he has taken preliminary objections inter alia maintainability, res judicata, cause of action and that the plaintiff had not alleged the complete facts in regard to an execution of application filed earlier in regard to the suit land. On merit, it was pleaded that the plaintiff was dispossessed on 29. 1997 from the suit land in accordance with law and he is not entitled to any relief claimed.