MAHAJAN Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs -appellants, two in number have filed the present second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the learned Sub Judge, 1st Class (II) Kangra at Dharamshala dated 28.06.1991 and the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala dated 29.12.1992, whereby their suit has been dismissed.

(2.) The appellants went to the Civil Court on the pleadings that the land in dispute, as per the description in the plaint and also the judgments under appeal, adjoined the land which was already in their ownership and possession. In the plaint, it was pleaded that the defendant -respondent - State of Himachal Pradesh was shown in the revalue record as its owner, while the Forest Department was shown as being in possession of the same, the case of the appellants is that they have been in possession of the land in dispute even prior to the year 1950, presumably through their forefathers, and thus, the above entries in favour of the respondent -State are factually wrong. It is also their case that then -own house in standing over the land in dispute, which was in existence for 15 years prior to the filing of the suit Both the adjoining land in their ownership and possession as well as the land in dispute had been enclosed by them with an old hedge, and this fact was in the knowledge of the respondent It was further pleaded that the latter had filed proceedings for eviction of the appellants from the land in dispute under Section 163 of the H.P Land Revenue Act Those proceedings resulted in an order of ejectment having been passed against them. Their appeals as well as revisions before the competent authorities under the said Act were also dismissed. In view of the observations made by the learned Divisional Commissioner while dismissing their revisions, they had applied to the collector for exchange of the land in dispute with their adjoining land but no action was taken. The cause of action, as per their pleadings, arose when warrants for their dispossession from the land in dispute were issued against them, which also would have meant the demolition of their house.

(3.) In the written statement, die respondent took up the stand that the land in dispute is in its ownership being in possession of the Forest Department. The appellants had encroached upon the same forcibly and unlawfully, resulting in proceedings for their ejectment, which are lawful, as also the eviction order passed against them by the competent authority. Further, the stand in the written statement was that the land in dispute fell within the municipal limits of Dharamshala and was being described as "Jungle Mehfooja Gair Mehdooda". This being the entry in the municipal record, it was not possible to regularise the encroachment of the land in dispute by the appellants. Certain preliminary objections were also raised in the written statement of the respondent.