Master Kalu Ram Verma v. Sh.Inder Singh

Smt. Pushpa Devi wife of Sh.Inder Singh, Both residents of Upper Cantt, Cantt Area District Sirmour, H.P. ..(cid:133)Respondents. Coram: Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1?No. For the petitioner: . For the respondents: Ms.Jyotsana Rewal, Advocate. Mr.Bimal Gupta, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J(Oral). The plaintiff is the petitioner, who challenges the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sirmour District, Nahan in an application moved by the respondents- defendants under Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure praying dismissal of the suit claiming that no proprietary rights could be conferred upon the plaintiff under the provisions of Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?.yes. 2 Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, consequently the suit was dismissed.

2. In order to arrive at the decision, the learned Court relies upon the decision of this Court in RSA. No. 34 of 1995 titled State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Chander Dev and others and the decision of the Supreme Court in Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Machado Brothers and others, (2004) 11 SCC 168.

The suit is based on the pleadings that the suit land described in khasra No. 369/I measuring 0-76 Hects. Khewat khatauni No. 92/128 situated at Mohal Cant Shamsherpur Nahan, is in the ownership of the plaintiff as per extract of jamabandi for the year 2001-02. The suit then proceeds that the defendant who has no right, title or interest on the land forcibly encroached upon the land by raising construction and putting a fence in and around the land in October, 2005. The plaintiff applied for the demarcation of the land. The suit was resisted by the defendant on number of grounds as pleaded including the ground of maintainability of the suit.

The plaintiff in order to establish his title relies upon Ext.P3 which is a copy of the mutation purportedly granting proprietary rights to the plaintiff under the provisions of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that the respondents has no locus standi to challenge the maintainability of the suit since the original grant of proprietorship/proprietary rights was conferred by the State Government. What I find from the 3 pleading is that they are two parties contesting proprietorship of the land on various grounds as pleaded by them without in any manner impleading the State of Himachal Pradesh which is supposed to have granted proprietary rights on the plaintiff. I do not find from the pleadings any averment that these proprietary rights were conferred by following the procedure prescribed under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act.

In these circumstances, the orders passed by the learned trial Court is quashed and set aside with this direction that the suit is remanded to the learned Judge for trial afresh in accordance with law and that the State of Himachal Pradesh through Collector, Nahan is impleaded as defendant No.2. Learned Additional Advocate General accepts notice on behalf of the State.

Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 11th December, 2012. Records be sent back forthwith. No order as to costs. All miscellaneous applications are also disposed of. October 3, 2012(R) (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. 4