STATE OF H P Vs. BHAGWAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through, the, instant appeal cast before this Court, the aggrieved defendants/appellants herein (for short "defendants), cast a challenge, upon, the concurrently recorded verdicts, by both the Courts below respectively, upon, Civil Suit No. 20/1 of 2005, and, upon Civil Appeal No. 18-NL/13 of 2014, (i) wherethrough the plaintiff's suit, for, rendition, of, a decree of declaration, and, for setting aside the order of cancellation of lease, vis-a-vis, the suit land, and, granted qua the plaintiff/respondent herein (for short "the plaintiff), stood decreed, and, also a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, stood rendered against the defendants, hence, restraining them, from, making any interference, in, the possession, of, the plaintiff, upon, the suit land.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the land measuring 10 bigha out of land measuring 111 bigha 12 biswas, comprised in khata Khatauni No. 21/21 min, bearing khasra No. 66 min, situated in village Baindhu, Hadbast No. 29, Pargana Gullarwala, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. (for short "the suit land") was alloted to the plaintiff by Gram Panchayat, Joghon, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, on lease at the rate of Rs.1/- per bigha per year on 9.11.1970, vide, resolution No. 2, rendered by the Panchayat, and, accordingly, the plaintiff was put in physical possession of the suit land, as, lessee, and, lease so created was initially for five years, and, the plaintiff had deposited the lease money for five years with the Panchayat concerned, amounting to Rs.50/-, and, as such the plaintiff entered into possession of the suit land. It is further averred that the plaintiff has not been dispossessed from the suit land at any point of time till date and he is still in possession of the suit land. It is further averred that the plaintiff has been in occupation of the suit land as lessee under a valid lease up to 8.11.1975 and thereafter he has been holding the suit land so leased to him, and, as such the defendants have no right title and interest to forcibly and illegally dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land except in due course of law. It is further averred that during the month of October, 2004 the defendants started extending threats through themselves and through their subordinates to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land by proclaiming that the status of the plaintiff of being lessee in possession of the suit land is no more in existence and stood cancelled by the defendants, and, as such, the plaintiff obtained copies of the relevant lease record from the office of defendant No.2 and also obtained copies of revenue record appertaining to the suit land, and, on perusal whereof the plaintiff came to know that the entries showing the plaintiff to be in possession of the suit land were illegally and wrongly changed vide rapat No. 427 of 4.6.1995, upon, the order of Assistant Collector, Ist class, Nalagarh by Patwari Halqua which order was passed behind his back, on the basis of ex-part order of cancellation of lease in favour of the plaintiff passed by Sub Divisional Collect, Nalagarh on 31.5.1976 which order was also passed behind the back of the plaintiff as no notice prior thereto was issued in favour of the plaintiff nor the plaintiff was given any opportunity of being heard, and, therefore the order cancelling the lease of the plaintiff passed by the defendant No.2 is illegal null void and not binding upon the plaintiff, and, entries changed on the basis of the afore order also not binding upon the plaintiff. It is further averred that the defendants never took any steps nor followed mandatory provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Act (for short "the Act") and rules framed thereunder wherein it is clearly mandated in section 4 of sub section (3) that no order under sub section 2 and 3 shall be passed by the collector without affording an opportunity of being heard to the parties to the lease, contract or agreement, as such, the defendants have no right to interfere in the suit land.

(3.) The defendants, by filing the written-statement, have contested the suit of the plaintiff, and, have taken preliminary objections of locus standi, estoppel, limitation, case of action, jurisdiction, valuation and the suit is bad for want of mandatory notice under Section 80(1) CPC. On merits, it is denied that the plaintiff was allotted the suit land measuring 10 bighas as lessee by Gram Panchayat, Joghon, but averred that the plaintiff was allotted only 5 bighs of land by gram Panchayat, Joghon which stood cancelled vide order dated 31.5.1976 passed by defendant No.2 as the plaintiff has never deposited Chakota money either with the Gram Panchayat or with the replying defendants. It is denied that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land since 1970. It is also averred that the plaintiff is stranger having no right title or interest over the suit land which is owned and possessed by the State of H.P and the plaintiff has concocted a false story in order to grab the government land. It is further averred that the plaintiff stood evicted from the suit land in pursuance of cancellation order passed by Sub Divisional Collector, Nalagarh on 31.5.1976 and the proforma defendant Khushi Ram who is brother of plaintiff has deposed before the Sub Divisional Collector, Nalagarh that the chakota of the plaintiff be cancelled due to the reason that the plaintiff is not entitled to lease of the land as the plaintiff has been living with his father who is owning 36 bighas of the land, and, as such the Sub Divisional Collector Nalagah has rightly cancelled the lease qua the suit land granted to the plaintiff by Gram Panchyat, Joghon. It is further averred that Sub Divisional Collector, Nalagarh when found that the wrong entries in the record are still existing even after passing of the order of cancellation of lease, further ordered on 3.5.1995 that the entries existing in the revenue record showing the plaintiff as lessee be corrected and the revenue entires were accordingly corrected. It is further averred that since the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land, therefore, there is no question of threatening the plaintiff by the defendants or its subordinates to dispossess him forcibly from the suit land. It is also averred that after scrutiny of records, it was found that both plaintiff and proforma defendant were shown in possession of 20 bighas of land as lessee which was wrong in view of the order of cancellation of lease of the plaintiff, and, as such, the Sub Divisional Collector, Nalagarh passed an order on 3.5.1995 that only proforma defendant be recorded as lessee of the land measuring 5 bighas whereas rest of the entry showing the plaintiff and proforma defendant as lessees was ordered to be deleted which was accordingly deleted vide rapat No. 427 of 14.6.1995 and such order passed by the Sub Divisional Collector Nalagarh is also legal and valid, and, sub Divisional Collector, Nalagarh was fully competent to cancel the lease, contract or agreement under Section 4 of the Act, whenever reported to him and he has taken all the mandatory steps under Section 3 and 4 of the Act.