UTTAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Regular Second Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 1.7.1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Shimla in civil appeal No. 89 -S/13 of 1997.

(2.) BRIEF facts necessary for the adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that the appellants -plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as ˜the plaintiffs for convenience sake) filed a suit for declaration that they were owners in possession of land measuring 43 -12 bighas bearing khasra Nos. 481, 505 and 540 min, land measuring 8 -18 bighas bearing khasra No. 803/782/455/2 and land measuring 16 -14 bighas bearing Khasra No. 785/484 situated in Chak Kuthar, Paragana Mandali, Tehsil theog, District Shimla and that the entries in the revenue record showing the said land in the ownership of the Sate of Himachal Pradesh are wrong, illegal and have no consequence. They have also prayed for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining respondent -defendant (hereinafter referred to as ˜the defendant for convenience sake) from interfering in their possession over the suit land. They had withdrawn their claim with respect to Khasra No. 505 measuring 24 -18 bighas vide statement dated 21.6.1997 of their counsel Sh. M.L. Chauhan. The suit land was earlier owned by the ruler of the erstwhile State of Balson. He inducted plaintiff No. 2 to 5 as tenants on the suit land in the year 1961 on sharing of half of the produce of the land as rent, as per averments contained in the plaint. Ever since the plaintiffs had been continuing in possession of the suit land. The entries in the revenue papers, however, continued to show the former ruler of erstwhile State of Balson as owner in possession of the suit land and taking undue advantage of these entries, which were factually incorrect, the said former ruler, included the suit land in the land which he offered to surrender to the State of Himachal Pradesh as surplus land under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. Consequently, an order declaring the suit land as surplus under the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 was passed and the land was mutated in the name of State of Himachal Pradesh. The plaintiffs were, however, not made a party to the proceedings taken by the Collector for the declaration of the suit land as surplus though the possession of the suit land on the spot was with them. Even after the declaration of the suit land as surplus, the plaintiffs continued to be in possession of the suit land. They came to know about the declaration of the suit land as surplus and the change of the entries in favour of the State of Himachal Pradesh sometime in the year 1978. They filed an application under Section 37 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act for the correction of entries in their favour. Their application was dismissed. Thereafter the notice was served upon the State of Himachal Pradesh.

(3.) MR . D.N. Ronta, Advocate has supported that judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. He then contended that the learned District Judge has erred in law by coming to a conclusion that the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred in view of the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. He further contended that the plaintiffs were inducted as tenants. He lastly contended that the entries made in favour of the State of Himachal Pradesh were nullity since the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land and no notice was served upon them as per the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972.