AMRAWATI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal has been filed by the appellant-State against the concurrent findings recorded by both the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs was partly decreed.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs was that they were residents of House No. 18-A, Raura Sector, Bilaspur and were owners in possession of land comprised in Khasra No. 338/11, measuring 5 biswas, situated in village Mandi-Manwa, Pargna and Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the suit land). It was averred that the plaintiffs were successor-in-interest of one Malhi, who had applied for grant of land under the Bhakra Dam Oustees Scheme by making an application through his son Prem Lal, the father of the plaintiffs, the latter acting in capacity of Rafiq (friend). Upon consideration on his application, Malhi was allotted the suit land vide order dated 20.11.1963 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur. The patta in this behalf was granted on 29.11.1972 and possession was delivered on the spot to the allottee and this was so recorded in mutation No. 226 dated 24.11.1973. It was averred that upon the death of Malhi, Prem Lal, the father of the plaintiffs became owner in possession of the suit land and applied for exchange of the said plot with a nearby area. During the process of making inquiries with respect to the request for exchange,the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur on 18.3.2005, reviewed the order dated 20.11.1963 and setaside the grant of suit land earlier made in favour of Malhi. The reason mentioned was that since plot No. 18-A in Raura Sector-2 had already been granted to Prem Lal son of Malhi, he could not have granted the benefit again. It was pleaded in the plaint that such an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, after 42 years of the allotment having been made, was unsustainable in the eyes of law, since the Deputy Commissioner did not possess the power of review under the relevant statute. The Divisional Commissioner had also fallen in error while dismissing an appeal against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and plaintiffs being legal heirs of Prem Lal be declared in possession of the suit land and the order dated 18.3.2005 of the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur affirmed in appeal by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi on 25.9.2010 were illegal, wrong, without jurisdiction and null and void. A declaration was further sought that the application for exchange of land filed by the predecessor-ininterest of the plaintiffs, was still surviving, consequently relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from causing any interference in the possession of the plaintiffs or dispossessing them from the suit land was prayed for. In the alternative, it was prayed that if the plaintiffs are dispossessed from the suit land they be granted a decree for possession of the suit land and in addition thereto, compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- for causing harassment and inconvenience to the plaintiffs was also sought against the defendant.

(3.) The defendant-State filed a written statement wherein preliminary objections qua maintainability, locus standi, estoppel, valuation and the plaintiffs being suppression of material facts were taken. On merits, it was averred that the possession of the suit land was given to the predecessors of the plaintiffs through Ram Lok and Roshan Lal. The land measuring 0-5 bigha comprised in Khasra No. 338/11, situated at Village Mandi-Manwa was allotted to Prem Lal, son of Malhi on 20.11.1963. It was averred that it was found during the inquiry proceedings on an application for exchange that there was no land in the name of Prem Lal in the old submerged town at Bilaspur and there was only a house in his name situated in a Abadi-deh land. Prem Lal had made an application on 29.9.1958 for allotment of a plot in new Bilaspur township, in pursuance of which he had been allotted a house-cum-shop comprised in Plot No. 18-A, Raura Sector, Bilaspur, New Bilaspur Town. It was pleaded that Prem Lal, predecessor-ininterest of the aforesaid plaintiffs while applying for the exchange of the land as an oustee did not disclose the fact of allotment of plot No. 18-A, Raura Sector and thereby the suit land had been allotted in his favour. Since he had already been allotted a plot for his rehabilitation in lieu of the acquired house, Prem Lal could not have given any further benefit under the scheme and thus, the allotment of the suit land to Prem Lal had rightly been cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner by reviewing his previous order. It was asserted that the appeal against the order of review had also been rightly rejected by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi and prayed for dismissal of the suit.