BRAHAMA NAND Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the plaintiff's second appeal against the concurrent findings of the two Courts below dismissing the suit instituted by the appellant-plaintiff herein praying for a decree of declaration that the order dated 13.7.1977 passed in Case No. 49/13 by the Collector, Shimla, Ex.DW-6/B and the order passed in appeal by the Commissioner, Shimla Division, Ex.P-7/B (Ex.DW-6/C), are without jurisdiction, illegal, void and not binding on the interests of the plaintiff-appellant.

(2.) The plaintiff pleaded that he is a permanent i.e. resident of Mauja Phayal (Dochi Nagog), Tehsil and District Shimla and is inhabitant of the said revenue estate and a co-sharer with the other "Malkan Deh" residents of village where he has been residing since the time of his birth. He claimed his own permanent ownership on land settled by him measuring 10-16 Bighas in Khasra No. 196 min, which, according to the plaintiff, was in his possession since the year 1970. The plaintiff pleaded that the action of the Gram Panchayat vide Ex.DW-6/A recording him as a lessee over the suit land is wrong.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court settled ten issues. Three of these issues, namely, (a) whether the plaintiff was co-owner in Khasra No. 196, (b) whether this Khasra Number has been partitioned and the area measuring 10-16 Bighas fell to his share and (c) whether the order passed by the revenue official are without jurisdiction, were taken up by the trial Court for determination holding that the plaintiff was a lessee over this land and not its co-owner. Ex.PW-7/A (Ex.DW-6/B) order passed by the Collector was in accordance with law and the appellate order of the Divisional Commissioner in appeal No. 16/78 Ex.PW-7/B (Ex.DW- 6/C) was also legal. In appeal, these findings have been reaffirmed by the learned District Judge.