Dalip Singh Katwal and Another vs Ravinder Singh Katwal and Others

Sanjay Karol, J.—Plaintiffs-Appellants (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) have filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2012, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, in Civil Appeal No. 47 of 2010, titled as Dalip Singh Katwal and another versus Ravinder Singh Katwal and others, whereby judgment and decree dated 3.3.2010, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sarkaghat, District Mandi, in Civil Suit No. 272 of 2000, titled as Dalip Singh Katwal and another versus Ravinder Singh Katwal and others, stands affirmed. Challenge to the judgments is on the ground that no forest land could have been allotted for private use without any prior permission of the Central Government.

Plaintiffs and private respondents No. 1 to 3 (hereinafter after referred to as the private defendants) are residents of same village. Major Sameer Katwal son of private defendant No. 1, while serving the Indian Army, attained martyrdom on 28.8.1999. He laid his life in service of the nation. He was just 25 years of age. State Government decided to set up a memorial (Samarak) in his honour, on the request of private defendants. This memorial was to be constructed on the land owned by the State government, which undisputedly was used as a playground by the general public. Courts below concurrently held that the State of Himachal Pradesh, respondent No. 4 herein, accorded necessary permission(s). In fact vide notification (Ex. DW-1/A), Deputy Commissioner, Mandi, was appointed as Chairman for supervising the work of the memorial. Decision to set up the memorial was taken by the Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi. Memorial stands constructed since 2000.

Plaintiffs are also aggrieved of the fact that private defendants had constructed garage and house over Government land. Repelling such contentions, the Courts below concurrently held that private defendants constructed their garage and house over their own land and not on the Government land.

Significantly, the State Government itself took a decision to construct the memorial. It was so done only to honour the soldier, who laid his life in service of the nation. Undisputedly, plaintiffs have no right over the said land. Courts below have concurrently held that except for mere paper entries, depicting the land to be forest, the land was in fact used as a playground by general public. Also, there were no trees over the same. Relief of injunction is discretionary in nature. The Courts below, in my considered view, rightly did not interfere on the asking of the plaintiffs. In any event they have no right over the suit land. As such, it cannot be held that findings returned by the Courts below are illegal, perverse and erroneous, warranting interference by this Court. No question of law, much-less a substantial question of law, arises for consideration in this appeal.

For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed and disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.