Himachal Pradesh High Court
Shri Inder Singh & Others vs State Of H.P. And Others on 17 December, 2018
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 409 of 2017.
Reserved on : 29th November, 2018.
.
Date of Decision: 17th December, 2018.
Shri Inder Singh & others .....Petitioners/Plaintiffs.
Versus
State of H.P. and others
Coram
r to .....Respondents/Plaintiffs.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Petitioners: Mr. K.D. Sood, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajneesh K. Lal, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Hemant Vaid and Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Deputy Advocate General.
Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
The plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration for setting aside the revenue entries recorded, vis-a-vis, the suit khasra number(s), (i) wherethrough, in substitution, of the earlier therewith consistent entries borne therein, reflecting ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2018 22:55:29 :::HCHP 2 the suit property, as Shamlat Hasab Rasab Khewat, and, theirs being shown in the column of possession, as, Mukbuja Malkan, (ii) rather the State of Himachal Pradesh, under, a .
mutation recorded in the year 1975, bearing No.353, stand reflected, as "Mustarka Sarkar Daulat Mandaar Va Jamindaran Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasab Khewat", (iii) and, thereafter consistent therewith entries are recorded in the revenue records, and, in respect whereof also rendition, of, a declaratory decree, for, theirs being set aside is r also claimed.
2. A perusal of the plaint, reveals, qua specific averments appertaining, vis-a-vis, the afore espousal, hence, being averred in paragraph No.5 of the plaint, para whereof stands extracted hereinafter:-
"5. That the revenue entries in the column of ownership of the jamabandi continued to be shown as "Mustarka Sarkar Daulat Mandaar Vs Jamindaran Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasab Khewat" in the revenue records. The mutation No.353 dated 26.9.1975 has been sanctioned for Mauza Pain Kuffar whereby land comprised in Khata No.69, Khatauni NO. 115 to 133, i.e. Khasra Kitta 71, the land which is earlier recorded as Shamlat deh hasab rasad khewat has been mutated in favour of Stat eof H.P. and there is reference of some order passed by Collector, ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2018 22:55:29 :::HCHP 3 Sub Division Rajgarh, Numbered as 1460/SDOC/R/75 dated 23.8.1975 in the said mutation. The said order and the mutation both have been passed behind the back of the plaintiffs or their predecessor-in-interest or the .
estate right holders. Even vide the order passed on the mutation the suit land has not been mutated in favour of State of HP, however, on the last page the suit land has been detailed and in the new entry the name of Zimdaran Shamlat deh hasab rasad khewat has been deleted, however, in the column of possession entry of makbuza Khud va Muktalif has been shown, even this mutation does not create any right, title or interest in favour of the defendant State of HP, the same and subsequent revenue tries in pursuance thereof are wrong, illegal, null and void. However, in the jamabandi for the year 1977-78 certain other numbers were included along with the other above mentioned three khasra numebrs i.e. Khasra No. 641 min, 642 min, and 643 min and in an unauthorized and illegal manner some cutting has been made in the column of ownership in the jamabandi especially without any order or mutation etc., as such the cutting, the land comprised in the above mentioned 3 khasra numbers are hereinafter are mentioned as "the land in question". The land in question which is part and parcel of the suit was subsequently in the jamabandi for the year 1977-78 has been shown to be owned by State of HP, the name of estate right holders has been deleted without any notice ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2018 22:55:29 :::HCHP 4 to the estate right holders, without adopting any legal process in an arbitrary, unilateral, unjust and unfair manner. The deletion of the names of estate right holders or the khewatdars which has been carried out .
behind their back or without their relinquishment of their rights, title and interest is not only wrong and illegal but further does not affect the rights, title and interest of the estate right holders qua the land in question."
Defendants No.1 and 2 in their written statement, instituted to the plaint, in apt corresponding paragraph No.5, of their written statement, as, furnished to the afore paragraph, of the plaint, belied the afore averment, by hence, rearing therein, the hereinafter ad verbatim extracted contention:-
"5. That the content of para-5 of the plaint are admitted to the extent that the column of ownership of jamabandi shown as a Mushtarka Sarkar Dolatmadar was Jamidaran Shamlat deh Hasab Rasab Khewat, it is also admitted that mutation o.353 dated 26.09.1975 sanctioned for mauza Pain Kuffar in favour of Govt. of HP vide order No. 1460/SDOC/R/75 passed by Collector, Sub Division Rajgarh. It is wrong and denied that said order was passed behind the back of plaintiff all their predecessor in interest all the state right holder. It is submitted that the order passed by the Collector Sub Division, Rajgarh was in knowledge of the plaintiffs and their predecessor as the land was allotted in Khasra No.641 and 642/2 to ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2018 22:55:29 :::HCHP 5 the people of the are who were landless through different mutation which is very much clear from the revenue record. It is wrong and denied that State of H.P. has no right, title and interest in the land in question."
.
3. During the pendency of the suit, before the learned trial Court, an application cast, under the provisions of Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, of, the CPC, was, preferred by the plaintiffs/applicants/petitioners herein, before it, (i) wherein, they sought relief of ad interim injunction, being pronounced vis-a-vis them, and, qua the suit land. Relief upon the aforesaid application, was declined, vis-a-vis, them, by the learned trial Court, (ii) and, the aggrieved plaintiffs, hence, preferred therefrom an appeal, before the learned District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, (iii) and, the latter Court also proceeded, to render an order, bearing concurrence therewith. Now the plaintiffs/ petitioners herein being aggrieved therefrom, hence, institute the instant petition before this Court.
4. Without testing the validity of the aforesaid espousal, reared by the contesting litigants, before this Court, (i) the prime principle(s), governing the declining and affording, of, the relief of ad interim injunction to the plaintiffs, comprised in the factum, of, their existing a prima ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2018 22:55:29 :::HCHP 6 facie case, in their favour is required, to be, from, traversing through, the material, in consonance therewith, existing on record, hence prima facie proven to hence beget apt .
satiation. In making the afore endeavour, a, perusal of jamabandi appertaining to the year 1949, is, important, (ii) wherein, in column of ownership, a, reflection occurs qua the suit land being described therein, to bear the classification of "Shamlat Hasab Rasab Khewat", and, in the column of possession, the, plaintiffs, stand described as "Makbuja Malkan". In adjudging the effect, of, the aforesaid reflections, borne in the jamabandi, vis-a-vis, the suit land, appertaining to the year 1949, it is also deemed important to bear in the mind, the, apt statutory provisions applicable thereto.
5. Consequently, before alluding to the factual matrix, prevailing in the extant suit, it is of utmost importance, to bear in mind, the apposite provisions borne, in Section 4, of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:-
4. Vesting of rights in Panchayats and non-proprietors. - (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any agreement, ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2018 22:55:29 :::HCHP 7 instrument, custom or usage or any decree or order of any court or other authority, all rights, title and interests whatever in the land:-
(a) which is included in the shamilat deh of any village and which has not vested in a panchayat under the .
shamilat law shall, at the commencement of this Act, vest in a panchayat constituted for, such,village, and, where no such panchayat, has been constituted for such village; vest in the panchayat on such date, as a panchayat having jurisdiction over that village is constituted;
(b) which is situated within or outside the abadi deh of a village and which is under the house owned by a non-proprietor, shall on the commencement of the shamilat law, be deemed to have been vested in such non-proprietor.
(2) Any land which is vested in a panchayat under the shamilat law shall be deemed to have been vested in the panchayat under this Act.
(3) Nothing contained in clause (a) of sub-section (1)and in sub-section (2) shall affect or sholl' be deemed ever to hove affected the-
(I) existing rights, title or interest of persons who though not entered as occupancy tenants in the revenue records are accorded a similar status by custom or otherwise, such as Dholidars, Bhondedars, Butimars, Bosikhuopahus, Saunjidars, Muqararidars;
(ii) rights of persons in cultivating possession of shamilat deh for more than twelve years without payment of rent or by payment of charges not exceeding the land revenue and cesses payable thereon;
(iii) rights of a mortagee to whom such land is mortgaged with possession before, the 26th January, 1950."
::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2018 22:55:29 :::HCHP 8(a) wherein in sub section 3 (ii) thereof, a specific mandate is engrafted, whereby, stand pointedly excluded, the diktat, hence, of, the preceding thereto provisions, rather, .
containing an explicit mandate, vis-a-vis, the apt vestment(s) of all rights qua lands reflected, as Shamilat Deh, in the revenue records apposite thereto, (i) besides thereunder apt preservation(s) of all rights, is, bestowed upon persons, in cultivating possession, of Shamilat Deh, for more than twelve years, without payment of rent or by payments of charges, not exceeding, the land revenue and cesses payable thereon,
(ii) or in other words, the aforesaid mandate borne in clause
(ii) of sub section (3) of Section 4 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, (iii) rather excludes, the operation, of, the preceding thereto provisions, occurring, in Section 4 of the aforesaid Act, wherein rather shamlat land, is, ordained to stand vested, in the Panchayat deh, (iv) also apart therefrom, provisions analogous, to the aforesaid provisions, are, also borne in clause (d) of Section 3, of The Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization (Amendment) Act, No.20 of 2001, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:-
::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2018 22:55:29 :::HCHP 9"(d) land records as "Shamlat tika Hasab Raad Malguzari" or by any such other name in the ownership column of jamabandi and assessed to land revenue and has been continuously recorded in .
cultivating possession of co-sharers so recorded before 26th January, 1950 to the extent of their shares therein"
(v) wherein a specific mandate, is engrafted, qua vis-a-vis all land(s) recorded, as "Shamlat Tika Hasab Rasad Malguzari" or "by any such other" name in the ownership column, of jamabandi, and, assessed to land revenue, and, continuously recorded in cultivating possession, of the cosharers, (vi) and, with afore reflection, of, possession whereof, rather evidently existing, in the apt records, prepared prior to 26 th January, 1950, (vii) thereupon, rather the mandate of preceding thereto provisions, contrarily, ordaining its/their vestment in the "panchayat deh", being hence specifically excluded besides excepted.
6. Both the aforesaid statutory provisions, for hence purveying the apt strength, to the espousal of the counsel, for the petitioner, (i) that, with theirs excluding, the mandate, and, operation, of the substantive provisions, borne respectively, in sub-section 3(ii) of Section 4, of the Punjab ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2018 22:55:29 :::HCHP 10 Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, and, in clause (d) of Section 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization (amendment) Act, No.20 of 2001, (ii) .
AND, whereunder, rather stand statutory excluded, hence, the prior thereto, rather explicit statutory contemplation(s), hence ordaining the vestment of shamlat land, in, the panchayat concerned, (iii) does, obviously, and, necessarily require an allusion to the evidence/material, bearing prima facie absolute tandem, r with, the afore-referred apt exclusionary provisions, as, contained in the afore stated statutory provisions. The apt revenue record, is comprised, in, copies of jamabandis, as, appertaining to the suit land, and, they respectively appertain to the years 1949, 1952-53, 1956-57, 1960-61 (iv) wherein, in the column, of ownership, reflections occur, vis-a-vis, the suit land, being described, as Shamlat deh Hasab Rasab Khewat, and, in possessory column thereof, reflections occur, qua the suit land being possessed, by "Makbuja Malkan", hence the apt co-sharer therein, holding, the apposite rights, in proportion of their/his shares, hence making user thereof. The afore referred, entries borne in jamabandis, as, appertaining to the years 1949, 1952-53, 1956-57, 1960-61, are not contested nor ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2018 22:55:29 :::HCHP 11 evidence, is adduced, (v) for ripping apart, the presumption of truth, carried by them, consequently, it is to be concluded, qua the afore referred, displays occurring therein, hence, .
prima facie rather enjoying conclusivity, (vi) whereupon, it is to be concluded, of, with the suit land holding hence the apposite description, of "Shamlat tika hasab rasad Malguzari", hence, render it, to, fall within the ambit of coinage "or any such other name", as, is hereat borne, thereupon, the exclusionary mandate borne, in clause (d) of Section 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting, and, Utilization (amendment) Act, No.20 of 2001, against its vestment, in the "panchayat deh" concerned, concomitantly making its evident/ prima facie surfacing, (vii) and, also the apt therewith exclusionary benefits thereof, hence, prima facie ensuing, vis-a-vis, the petitioners/plaintiffs. Moreover, the afore-referred reflections, borne in jamabandis, as, appertaining to the years 1949, 1952-53, 1956-57, 1960-61, are lent vigorous succor, by mutation bearing No.353, wherein a clear display is embodied, of despite, the suit land being reflected as, "Shamlat deh Hasab Rasab Khewat", (viii) yet, evidently, despite, the afore classification donned by the suit land, it, ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2018 22:55:29 :::HCHP 12 stood untenably vested in, the government/panchayat.
Nowat, the reflections, in the apposite order, hence, attesting mutation, of, vestment, of the suit land, in the State .
concerned, (ix) suit land whereof, rather carries the classification of "Shamlat deh Hasab Rasab Khewat", reiteratedly renders the aforesaid factum, as, clearly borne, in the order attesting the relevant mutation, to, hence thereupon rather acquire conclusivity, (x) thereupon, the evident mantle, donned by the suit land, vis-a-vis, it being "Shamlat deh Hasab Rasab Khewat", is both obviously, and, openly, prima facie acquiesced by the respondents/State, also, hence the factum probandum, of the suit land, earlier depicted, in the jamabandis appertaining to the years 1949, 1952-53, 1956-57, 1960-61, to bear the character, of "Shamlat deh Hasab Rasab Khewat", rather also prima facie acquires corroborative vigour, as also, conclusivity. The order or mutation No.353, in pursuance whereof, also jamabandis, were, prepared subsequent thereto, hence, also carry reflections in compatibility thereof, and, in pursuance whereof, the vestment of the suit land, occurred, in the State, despite, reiteratedly it evidently, bearing, the statutory exclusionary classification, of "Shamlat deh Hasab Rasab ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2018 22:55:29 :::HCHP 13 Khewat", (xi) rather is neither at par, nor is construable to be any piece, of a valid legislation, whereunder, rather would occur, any apposite valid supplantation or amendment, vis-a-
.
vis, the mandate of clause (ii) to sub section (3) of Section 4, of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act. In aftermath, with the provisions, borne in clause (ii), to sub section (3) of Section 4 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, remaining hence unsubstituted, through, a valid amendment, rather carried, by the legislative assembly concerned, (xii) thereupon, with a candid diktat borne therein, especially, vis-a-vis, preservations of rights, of persons, in cultivating possession, of "shamlat land, rather, for more than 12 years, without payment of rent or by payment of charges nor exceeding the land revenue, and, cesses payable thereon", (xiii) in category whereof, both the suit land, and, the petitioners/plaintiffs, prima facie rather fall, given emphatically, with the afore jamabandis, appertaining to the suit land, for reasons aforesaid, bearing out the factum, (xiv) of, the predecessors-in-interest, of, the petitioners/plaintiffs, holding continuous cultivating possession, of shamlat land, since 1949 upto 1975, whereat mutation No.353 stood attested, (xv) thereupon, with the suit ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2018 22:55:29 :::HCHP 14 land, prima facie falling, within the ambit, of, the apposite exclusionary mandate, borne in clause (ii) to sub section (3) of Section 4 of the Punjab Village Common Lands .
(Regulation) Act, vis-a-vis, the preceding thereto mandate(s), (xvi) wherein, contrarily, stand rather excepted, the lands evidently falling, within, the domain of clause (ii) to sub-
section (3) of Section 4, of, the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, (xvii) and, bearing the classification of Shamlat deh, against from their vestment, in the Panchayat, (xviii) and, sequelly, hence, the lack of valid supplantation thereof, through, a valid legislative amendment, rather rendered, the apposite exclusionary mandate, borne in clause (ii) to sub Section (3) of Section 4 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, to, both hold prima facie clout and sway, (xix) whereas, mutation bearing No.353, obviously does not, prima facie either override or benumb the operation or clout, and, the command, of the apposite exclusionary statutory provisions, vis-a-vis, the preceding thereto provisions, borne in Section 4, of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, (xx) hence renders any meteing, of, reverence thereto, to not per se clothe it with any sanctity.
::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2018 22:55:29 :::HCHP 157. Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing.
for the respondents places reliance, upon, a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered, in a case titled as Gurbachan .
Singha and another vs. Gram Pancyayat and others , reported in (2000)10 SCC 594, the relevant paragraphs whereof are extracted hereinafter:-
"1. This litigation has had a chequered history; the dispute confining to jurisdiction. The High Court has taken the view that the civil suit did not lie and that an application under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 will lie before the Collector of the district. In our view, the High Court was right in coming to that view especially when a question of title has been raised and Section 13 of the said Act puts a bar to the civil court determining that question. We, therefore, dispose of this appeal in letting the appellants approach the Court of the Collector under Section 11 of the said Act.
2. Under interim orders of this Court dated 27-11- 1990 the appellants were required to deposit a sum of Rs 100 p.m. regularly. In terms of that order, the said sum was required to be depositedan the District Court. The sum thus collected be handed over to the respondent Gram Panchayat. This order would not, however, preclude the appellants from obtaining interim orders from the Collector when proceeding under Section 11 of the Act. In this manner, the appeal stands disposed of. No costs.
Wherein, Section 13, of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, alike Section 10, of the Himachal Pradesh ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2018 22:55:29 :::HCHP 16 Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Act, 1974, foists a statutory bar, against, the civil Court, exercising jurisdiction, over any matter, arising, from the question of .
title, (i) and, when in absolute alikeness or affinity therewith, provisions also occur in Section 10 of the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Act, (ii) AND when in respect whereof, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the apt paragraphs extracted hereinabove, had, concluded of the civil courts, holding no jurisdiction, vis-a-vis, any matter falling with the domain, of the aforesaid Act, (iii) hence, no pronouncement, in the affirmative being meted, vis-a-vis, the instant lis. However, the reliance, as placed by the learned counsel appearing, for the respondents, upon, the aforesaid statutory bar, created in the apposite provisions, occurring in both, the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting, and, Utilization Act, and, in the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, for hence rendering, not maintainable, the extant suit, before the civil court concerned, (iv) is clearly a sequel, of his misreading, the entire statutory provisions, as, borne in both the afore referred statutes, (v) also arises from his being unmindful vis-a-vis (vi) the evident description, of the suit land, in the apt record, as "Shamlat deh Hasab Rasab ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2018 22:55:29 :::HCHP 17 Khewat, whereon, the apt exclusionary statutory provisions, as, referred hereiabove, are prima facie firmly concluded, to hence stand attracted, (vii) and, as a corollary thereof, the .
vestment of the suit land in the State, is, prima facie concluded to stand stained, with, vices of apt statutory infractions. The sequel of the learned counsel appearing, for the respondents, hence remaining unmindful, vis-a-vis, the afore referred conclusions, is obviously qua hence, the apt hereafter ensual, rather arising, (viii) qua with all revenue records, specifically mutation No.353, being manifestly prepared in derogation, of, the apt exclusionary statutory provisions, and, in sheer derogation, of, apposite therewith classification hence donned, by the suit land, (ix) thereupon with the apt mutation No.353 being invalidly recorded, (x) besides, its begetting open infraction, of, the mandate of the apt exclusionary provisions, borne in clause (ii) to sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, and, in clause (d) of Section 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization (Amendment) Act, 20 of 2001, (xi) thereupon, unless the apt excepting relief(s), as, created in the afore referred statutes, is accepted, and, is applied hereat, (xii) ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2018 22:55:29 :::HCHP 18 thereupon, alone the solemn holistic purpose, of the apt exclusionary mandate, would be preserved, (xiii) concomitantly, for keeping alive the apt excepting mandate, .
thereupon, the apt statutory bar, rather hence cannot be construed, to be creating any obstruction. Contrarily, rather, the ill besides insagacious sequel, would ensue, of even invalidly made orders, anchored upon a clear lack of adherence, to the revenue records, bearing absolute incongruity, with the mandate of the apt exclusionary clauses, to the relevant inclusionary or vesting provisions, respectively, borne in clause (ii) to sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, and, in clause (d) of Section 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting, and, Utilization (Amendment) Act, 20 of 2001, rather, being hence untenably validated. Corollary thereof, is that the bar, of jurisdiction, is applicable, vis-a-vis, only validly made orders, by the revenue officers, and, it being not be applicable, vis-a-vis, any invalidly made orders or orders made in blatant transgression, of, the apt excepting statutory provisions. Moreover, the judgment whereon, the learned counsel, appearing for the respondents, has, placed reliance, makes a clear display, of the Hon'ble Apex Court, ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2018 22:55:29 :::HCHP 19 affirming the view taken, by the Hon'ble High Court, (i) that, the remedy available, to the aggrieved litigant, being to cast, an application under Section 11 of the Act, before the .
revenue officer concerned, and, not by his canvassing, his grievance, through, his instituting, a civil suit suit.
Consequently, with Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, hence, appertaining to an interdiction, against, any preemption, against, sale of land, in shamlat deh, (ii) whereas, contrarily, hereat, there is open, gross and blatant transgression, of, the apt statutory hence excepting exclusionary mandate, vis-a-vis, the mandate, of, apt vesting provisions, (iii) thereupon, no remedy other than, for setting aside, the apposite order or for setting aside, all concurring therewith entries, as, carried in the revenue record, through, the institution of the civil suit, rather comprising, the, only remedy available, vis-a-vis, the aggrieved, and, also vis-a-vis the petitioners/plaintiffs herein.
8. In coming to the aforesaid conclusion this Court derives strength from a judgment of tis Court rendered in case titled as Chuhniya Devi vs. Jindu Ram, reported in 1991(1) Sim. L.C., 223, wherein this Court, while answering the issue, with respect to the effect of the statutory bar, ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2018 22:55:29 :::HCHP 20 existing in Section 115 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, (i) had, though rendered an answer qua the afore bar, rendering rather disempowered the civil Courts, to, exercise .
jurisdiction, vis-a-vis, all the orders rendered by a Revenue Officer, while, exercising hence powers vested in them under Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, (ii) rather had also proceeded to carve therein, hence, exceptions thereto, inasmuch as (iii) orders being rendered in blatant transgression r of the fundamental judicial procedure; (iv) provisions of the Act had not been complied with. Even though, the afore judicial verdict, is, rendered with respect to the statutory bar, existing in H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, yet, analogous thereto provisions , do also exist in the extant Act, (v) thereupon, the trite principles, in exception therewith, as referred above, are, also applicable hereat, besides when for all reasons aforestated, there is apparent blatant transgression, by the revenue authorities
(a) of the fundamental judicial procedure while attesting mutation, (b) whereunder, the proprietary rights conferred upon the State, vis-a-vis, the afore statutory provisions, (c) thereupon, the learned District Judge concerned, has prima facie erred in concluding, that, the suit is barred by statutory ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2018 22:55:29 :::HCHP 21 mandate, encapsulated in Section 10 of the H.P. Village Common Lands (Vesting and Utilization) Act, hence, thereafter, hence, has proceeded to decline the relief, to the .
plaintiffs.
9. Consequently, the result of the afore discussion is that triplicate principles governing the affording or declining, of, apposite relief, comprised in, (a) prima facie good arguable case being established by the plaintiffs; (b) balance of convenience being loaded vis-a-vis the plaintiffs and (c) irreparable loss or injury being, causable to the plaintiffs, in case, ad interim injunction is not granted, hence visibly begetting the apt satiation qua the plaintiffs.
10. The aforesaid discussion, unfolds, that both the learned courts below, in making, hence disaffirmative concurrent pronouncement(s) vis-a-vis the plaintiffs/petitioners herein, have omitted to revere apposite material, thereupon, both the learned Courts below have mis-appraised, and, ousted from consideration, the, relevant material.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition is allowed and orders impugned before this Court are set aside.
In sequel, the parties are directed to maintain status quo qua ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2018 22:55:29 :::HCHP 22 nature and possession with respect to the suit land, till, the final disposal of the main suit, by the learned trial Court. The parties are directed to appear, before, the learned trial Court, .
on 26th December, 2018. However, it is made clear that the observations made hereinabove shall have no bearings on the merits of the case. No order as to costs. All pending applications also stand disposed of . Records, if received, be sent back forthwith.
r (Sureshwar Thakur)
17 December, 2018
th
Judge.
(jai)
::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2018 22:55:29 :::HCHP