STATE OF H.P. Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants in this appeal have assailed judgment, decree dated 29.8.1997 passed by learned District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 11/92, reversing judgment, decree dated 26.12.1991 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Karsog in Civil Suit No. 68 of 1988 (SNR) 116 of 1991 (KSG).

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that respondents had filed a suit for declaration and injunction that they are owners in possession of land comprised in Khewat No. 109, khasra No. 195, Muhal Baroti/70, measuring 4 -12 -16 bighas, Tehsil Sundernagar which they had purchased from Dlumbi Devi vide registered sale deed dated 30.12.1980 alongwith land comprised in Khewat No. 103, Khatouni No. 120, Khasra No. 193, situated in the same village which they had purchased from Sunder through registered sale deed dated 14.1.1981. The further case of the respondents is that they are owners in possession of the suit land but Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Sundernagar had issued a show cause notice requiring the respondents to explain why they be not ejected. The proceedings under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act were pending, the A.C. Ist Grade, Sundernagar without deciding the objections filed by the respondents ordered on 25.3.1988 that the order dated 27.5.1986 (sic 22.5.1986) be complied. It has been alleged that both the orders dated 25.3.1988 and 27.5.1986 are null and void.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned Addl. Advocate General and gone through the record, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. The learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that lower appellate Court has erred in setting aside well reasoned judgment of the trial Court. It has been submitted that the sale deeds executed by Smt. Dlumbi Devi and Sunder in favour of the respondents are void and in contravention of the scheme, therefore, the allotments of two sets of lands were rightly cancelled. Substantial questions of law No. 1 to 3.