Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 186 (HP)

Karam Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2011-01-05

RAJIV SHARMA

body2011
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.05.2009, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra in R.B.T. C.A. No. 21-P/XIII/08. 2. Material facts necessary for adjudication of this Regular Second Appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiff” for convenience sake) had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as “the defendants” for brevity sake), on the ground that the land in suit, comprised in Khata No. 25 min, Khatauni No. 42 min, Khasra No. 129/66/1, measuring 0-29-52 Hects., situated in Mohal Surd, Mauza Bandla, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. H.P. was allotted to him in 1975-76 and he started cultivatingthe same. However, the mutation could not be attested in his favour and for the same, he applied to the Tehsildar, Palampur to permit him to deposit the amount of compensation and also attest the mutation. He was allowed to deposit the compensation amount in the Government treasury vide order dated 08.04.1997 and thereafter, mutation No. 57, dated 26.05.1997 was attested in his favour and the suit land was transferred in the revenue record also in his name. According to him, the Tehsildar, Palampur had threatened to review the aforesaid mutation and cancel the same. It is in these circumstances, that the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction was filed restraining the defendants from canceling the allotment of the suit land or reviewing the mutation No. 57. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants. On merits, it was stated that the suit land was never allotted to the plaintiff. In fact, it was allotted to his brothers, namely, Johli, Purshotam, Durga and Ganga in the year 1975-76. The plaintiff was minor at that time and connived with Patwari and fraudulently forged the Patta in his name and on the basis of the same, he got the mutation attested in his favour. When this fraud was detected, the matter was enquired into. Consequently, the mutation already attested in favour of the plaintiff was duly and legally cancelled. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Patwari as well. The trial Court framed the issues on 21.07.2004. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 01.12.2007. When this fraud was detected, the matter was enquired into. Consequently, the mutation already attested in favour of the plaintiff was duly and legally cancelled. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Patwari as well. The trial Court framed the issues on 21.07.2004. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 01.12.2007. Plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala. The same was dismissed on 22.05.2009. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 22.05.2009. 4. Mr. Ashwani Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are not in accordance with the principles of law. He then argued that his client has been granted Patta in accordance with law and the mutation attested could not be cancelled. He lastly contended that both the Courts below have mis-read the oral as well as documentary evidence. 5. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General have supported the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 7. Plaintiff has appeared as PW-1. He deposed that in the year 1977-78, the suit land measuring 0-29-52 hects. was allotted to him as he was living separately from his brothers. He further deposed that in the year 1997, some persons filed an application against him before Tehsildar and thereafter, mutation was cancelled and his allotment/Patta was also cancelled by the defendants. In his cross-examination, he admitted that in the year 1975, his age was 15 years. He also admitted that Jholi, Purshotam, Durga and Ganga are his real brothers. He denied the suggestion that the suit land was allotted to his brothers and he tampered with the original Patta. He also admitted about lodging of a complaint against him and Patwari. He was also arrested in that case and the case was pending before the J.M.I.C.-II, Palampur. 8. PW-2 Judya Devi is the sister of plaintiff. She deposed that the Pattas were allotted in favour of her father and brothers and her father got the Patta allotted in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is cultivating the suit land. She further admitted that when the land was allotted to Jholi, Purshotam, Durga and Ganga, the plaintiff was 10-12 years. She deposed that the Pattas were allotted in favour of her father and brothers and her father got the Patta allotted in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is cultivating the suit land. She further admitted that when the land was allotted to Jholi, Purshotam, Durga and Ganga, the plaintiff was 10-12 years. She also admitted that only one allotment can be made to one family. She also admitted that criminal case was registered against the plaintiff, in which he was arrested. PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 have supported the version of the plaintiff. PW-6 has produced the records. PW-7 Kartar Singh testified on oath that from 1994 to 1996, he remained Patwari of Bandle village and plaintiff had shown the original Patta to him. He also proved his report Ex.PW-7/A. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that allotment is made by the Deputy Commissioner. However, in this case, the allotment was made by the Tehsildar, though the Tehsildar cannot make any allotment. PW-8 Ghanthu Ram has also supported the plaintiff. 9. DW-1 is Purshotam Lal, Field Kanungo. He has proved the copy of allotment list Ex. DW-1/A. which was correct as per the original. He has also proved the copy of Patta Ex. DW-1/B, the report of Patwari Ex. DW-1/C and as per that report, the land was allotted to Jholi, Purshotam, Durga and Ganga. He also proved the copy of details of land Ex.DW-1/D to Ex. DW-1/F. He denied the suggestion of plaintiff that Khasra No. 129/66/1 was allotted to the plaintiff. 10. DW-2 Baljit Singh, office Kanungo, Palampur has deposed that he has seen the original Patta, copy of which is Ex. DW-1/A and the copy of allotment list Ex. DW-1/A. He further testified that the plaintiff got the mutation No. 57 attested in his favour qua the land comprised in Khasra No. 129/66/1 and during mutation Khasra No. 129/66/1 was allotted in lieu of old Khasra No. 66/8. He also deposed that the said mutation was later on reviewed and was subsequently cancelled. 11. What emerges from the evidence brought on record, is that the plaintiff was never allotted land in question. The land in question was allotted to his brothers. Plaintiff was 15 years’ old when the allotment was made. It is in these circumstances, that the mutation attested in his favour was cancelled and F.I.R. was also registered against him and Patwari. What emerges from the evidence brought on record, is that the plaintiff was never allotted land in question. The land in question was allotted to his brothers. Plaintiff was 15 years’ old when the allotment was made. It is in these circumstances, that the mutation attested in his favour was cancelled and F.I.R. was also registered against him and Patwari. Plaintiff was also arrested. PW-2 Judya Devi is the real sister of plaintiff. She has also admitted that the plaintiff was 10-12 years old at the time when the Patta was granted. The Patta could not be granted to the plaintiff validly, since he was minor at that time. It is evident from Ex. DW-1/A, Ex. DW-1/B and Ex. DW-1/C that the land in question was allotted in favour of Jholi, Purshotam, Durga and Ganga. In Ex. DW-1/D, it was shown that Jholi, Purshotam, Durga and Ganga were landless person. Ex.DW-1/E is the copy of Khatoni of land comprising Khasra No. 66 and Ex. DW-1/F is the copy of Tatima. Consequently, in view of the observations made hereinabove, both the Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence on record. There is no substantial question of law involved in this Regular Second Appeal. 12. Accordingly, there is no merit in this Regular Second Appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs.