Himachal Pradesh High Court
Harnam Singh And Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 29 August, 2016
Author: Rajiv Sharma
Bench: Rajiv Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CMPMO No. 436/2015
Reserved on: August 17, 2016
Decided on: August 29, 2016
.
___________________________________________________________________
Harnam Singh and others ...... Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others ........Respondents
___________________________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge
Whether approved for reporting? 1 no.
of
___________________________________________________________________
For the petitioners : Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
For the respondents rt : Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Deputy
Advocate General, for respondents
No.1 to 3.
Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for
respondents No.4 and 5.
None for respondent No. 6.
___________________________________________________________________
Rajiv Sharma, Judge:
This petition is instituted against Order dated 21.4.2015 rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Hamirpur, (HP) in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 01 of 2014.
2. "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioners have filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondents in respect of the suit land detailed in the plaint. According to them, petitioners alongwith other Tikadarans are in cultivatory possession of the suit since the times of their ancestors. Suit land was made cultivable by the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:06:05 :::HCHP 2ancestors who had never been dispossessed from the suit land. Suit land has never vested in respondents No.1 to 3. Mutation in the name of the Gram Panchayat and private respondents has been .
attested at the back of the petitioners-plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-interest. Mutation Nos. 1129 and 1131, dated 4.7.2012 in favour of respondents No.4 and 5 in respect of the suit land are illegal and fraudulent since the plaintiffs-petitioners have not been dispossessed or evicted from the suit land by following due of process of law. Petitioners have also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for interim injunction restraining the rt respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs-petitioners over the suit land. Learned trial Court dismissed the application on 16.12.2013. Petitioners filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Hamirpur against Order dated 16.12.2013. He also dismissed the same on 21.4.2015. Hence, this petition.
3. Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate has vehemently argued that the learned Courts below have wrongly denied the relief of injunction to the petitioners-plaintiffs.
4. Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the respective respondents have supported the orders passed by the learned Courts below.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:06:05 :::HCHP 36. Court has to examine, while considering an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, whether prima facie case and balance of convenience is in favour of the party and the party would .
suffer irreparable loss and injury if the interim relief is not granted.
According to the Misal Hakiat for the year 1910-11 and Jamabandis for the years 1953-54, 1961-62 and 1971-72, suit land was recorded in possession of some of the plaintiffs-petitioners and their Tikadarans. Suit land, in the year 1910-11 was recorded as Shamlat of Tika Hasav Hissa Mundrja Shajra Nasav. During the year 1961-62, Gram Panchayat Halqua Bhoranj came to be reordered in the rt column of ownership and thereafter during the year 1978-79 the entries with respect to suit land in the column of possession were changed to allotment pool. Entry in the remarks column of copy of Jamabandi for the year 1971-72 shows that the suit land stands vested in the State of Himachal Pradesh and has been kept in allotment pool. The entries in the remarks column of Jamabandi for the year 1978-79 show its allotment to defendants No. 4 and 5.
Mutations No. 1129 and 1131 dated 4.7.2012 have been attested with respect to said allotment in their favour. Even in the Jamabandi for the year 2003-04, suit land is shown to be owned by the State of Himachal Pradesh and in the entries in remarks column, it has been shown to have been kept in the allotment pool.
Copy of order dated 11.7.2013, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Bhoranj, shows that the appeal under Section 14 of the HP Land Revenue Act filed by some of the plaintiffs alongwith other ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:06:05 :::HCHP 4 Tikadarans against attestation of mutations was dismissed. Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) while dismissing the appeal observed that as per RSA No. 335 of 1996, only land measuring 224 Kanal 9 Marla .
comprised in Khatauni Nos. 135 to 180 as per Jamabandi for the year 1945-46 has been exempted from vestment. Suit land was neither recorded in cultivatory possession nor assessed to land revenue. Suit land was initially vested in the Gram Panchayat and thereafter in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Plaintiffs, moreover, of have not filed suit for declaration, challenging the entries to be wrong and illegal. Suit simpliciter is for injunction on the basis of rt longstanding possession. Entries have been altered in the year 1978-79. There is neither any perversity nor any illegality in the order passed by the order passed by learned trial Court.
7. Courts below have correctly appreciated the evidence led by the parties. There is neither any perversity nor any illegality in the order passed by the learned Courts below.
8. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any. No costs.
(Rajiv Sharma) Judge August 29, 2016 (vikrant) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:06:05 :::HCHP