Sant Ram vs Bhup Singh and Another

Surinder Singh, J.—Appellant was plaintiff before the learned trial court. He filed a suit for seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondents with respect to the government land comprised of Khasra No. 14.

The case of the plaintiff has been that he had planted the trees of Bauhal, Kambhal, vakar Khirak and has been cutting the grass from the suit khasra besides grazing his cattle. He alleged threatening to his possession from the respondents thus, on the basis of his entry in the remarks column purported to be made on the orders of Settlement Officer, sought injunction.

The suit was contested and resisted by the respondents on the ground that although the suit land is owned by the State of H.P. but the Bartandaran of the village are having the customary rights of grazing over the suit land as per Naksha Bartan. Besides that, there has been a link road maintained out of public funds connecting main road which is used by the general public. It was also their case that the plaintiff had disposed of his property in village Barsu, he has ceased to be a bartandar of village Barsu thus has no right. The entry in the remarks column is alleged to be collusive.

The learned trial Court having been swayed by the entry in the remarks column decreed the suit as such respondents filed the appeal.

In appeal, the learned District Judge reversed the findings as such the appeal was allowed and the suit of the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed. Now the plaintiff filed this second appeal along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC by annexing the copies of missal haquiat, Jamabandis for the years 1971-72, 2007-2008 and also the copy of Rojnamcha No. 285 dated 26.4.1980.

Rojnamcha report aforesaid goes contrary to the case of the appellant. It shows that he was evicted from the suit-khasra and his entry of possession as encroacher was ordered to be substituted and recorded as ''Charagah Bila Darakhtan'' whereupon the bartandaran have customary rights. The entries in the jamabandi for the year 2002-2003 Ext. PW1/A makes a reference in the column of possession as Kabja Swayam malik tabe hakuk Bartandaran Mutabik naksha Bartan. The nature of the land is recorded Charagaha Beenadarkhtan. These entries refers to customary rights of grazing of the right-holders of Mauja Barsu over the suit khasra. The plaintiff-appellant failed to prove as to how the reference of the order of Revenue officer in his favour came into existence in the remarks column'' more specifically when it has come in his own statement that he did not make any application to the Settlement Officer for recording such an entry. The learned first Appellate Court took note of these facts and rightly observed that this entry has been made in the mysterious circumstances thus cannot be relied upon and rightly so in absence of any order of the Settlement Officer.

It stands proved that the plaintiff/appellant has no landed property in Mauja Barsu and had shifted to Mauja Baghla and it is not shown that the proprietary body of village Baghla had any Bartandari rights over the suit khasra.

Therefore, in the above circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court nor any substantial cause is going to be served by admitting the appeal and allowing the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC as no substantial question of law is involved for its determination in this appeal, as such dismissed in limine.

In view of the dismissal of the main appeal, all miscellaneous application(s) shall stand dismissed.