Prakasho Devi And Another vs State Of H.P. And Others

Bipin Chander Negi, J

The present appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioners, against a common order dated 28.4.2025 passed in applications bearing CMP No. 16455 of 2024, CMP No. 16396 of 2023 filed in CWP No. 1784 of 2010, CWP No. 5434 of 2010 respectively, whereby both the aforesaid applications seeking impleadment of the applicant as respondent in the afore-stated two writ petitions have been allowed.

The present appeal has been preferred only against the impleadment of the applicant in CWP No. 1784 of 2010. The said writ petition was admitted vide order dated 3.8.2010. Vide order dated 4.7.2011, CWP No. 5434 of 2010 and CWP No. 1784 of 2010 were ordered to be listed together on 8.8.2011. On 8.8.2011, the Court observed that since CWP No. 5434 of 2010 had not been admitted, hence both the aforesaid matters were ordered to be listed before an appropriate Division Bench. Thereafter, since 11.7.2016, both the petitions have been taken up together for consideration by the learned Single Judge.

CMP No. 16455 of 2023 was filed in CWP No. 1784 of 2010 by one Sh. Jagdish Ram, seeking to be impleaded as a respondent in the aforesaid writ petition. In the application so filed, it has been averred that the father of the applicant, namely Sh. Prabhu Ram, had filed Civil Suit No. 378 of 1969. The aforesaid suit was filed against the Gram Sabha in a Court of competent jurisdiction (Sub Judge concerned). In the suit so filed, the predecessor-in-interest of the applicant (late Sh. Prabhu Ram) had sought a declaration on account of the fact that he was in possession of the disputed land for the last 35/36 years, was paying Rs.10/- per year as rent, therefore, was entitled to remain in possession of the land as a tenant in future on payment of Rs.10/- per year as rent. A permanent prohibitory injunction had also been sought restraining the Gram Sabha from not interfering in his possession.

The aforesaid suit was compromised inter-se the parties on account of statements made by the respective parties on 31.5.1971 before the trial Court. Based on the aforesaid a decree, as prayed for by the predecessor-in-interest of the applicant, had been granted in his favour. The aforesaid facts can be deduced from Annexure A-1 (page 58 of the paper book of the appeal/page 363 of the paper book of the writ petition), judgment dated 25.7.1972 passed by the District Judge, Kangra, in Appeal No. 36 of 1971 against the judgment and decree dated 31.5.1971. The said appeal had been preferred by persons who were not parties to the original suit and who claimed themselves to be co-sharers. The appeal so preferred was dismissed as no leave to appeal had been sought.

Thereafter the judgment and decree dated 31.5.1971 was challenged by the State of Himachal Pradesh by filing Civil Suit No. 15 of 1990 titled as State of H.P. vs. Sh. Prabhu Ram. The decree dated 31.5.1971 had been challenged on the ground that the same was collusive. The suit so preferred was dismissed on 15.12.1994 (page 366 of the paper book of the writ petition). Appeal arising from the aforesaid dismissal bearing No. 64/1995 titled State of H.P. vs. Prabhu Ram, preferred before the District Judge, Hamirpur, was also dismissed on 29.12.2002 (page 376 of the paper book of the writ petition). The consequential Regular Second Appeal No. 294 of 2003 titled State of H.P. vs. Prabhu Ram was dismissed on 11.9.2014, (page 399 of the paper book of the writ petition), wherein it was categorically held that the suit filed laying challenge to the decree dated 31.5.1971 was barred by limitation and, hence, the suit was not maintainable.

It is further averred in the application that the writ petition pertains to land measuring 295 kanals 4 marlas in Khata No. 33, Khatauni No. 86-107, as per the Jamabandi for the year 1976/77, situated in Tikka Sahlwil, Tappa Bansal, Tehsil Hamirpur, H.P. The writ petitioners therein claim to be in possession of the aforesaid land. The vesting of the same in the State of Himachal Pradesh under the H.P. Village Common Land (Vesting and Utilization) Act, 1974, and further allotments made in pursuance to the aforesaid vesting have been assailed by the writ petitioners. Besides the aforesaid in the application filed seeking impleadment, the applicant avers based on the judgment and decree dated 31.5.1971 passed in favour of his predecessor-in-interest (late Sh. Prabhu Ram), his possession on a part of the suit land, which is the subject matter of adjudication in CWP No. 1784 of 2010, and hence it is contended in the application that any adjudication with respect to the suit land in the aforesaid writ petition would adversely affect the rights of the applicant. Therefore, to do complete and substantial justice, the applicant has prayed to be impleaded as a respondent, being a necessary party for adjudication of the main case in the writ petition. In the reply filed to the application, besides various objections taken, it has been primarily objected on the ground that the writ petitioners, being dominus litus, are free to choose their opponents. It has further been contended that the application so filed is barred by limitation.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

The details of the suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the applicant i.e. late Sh. Prabhu Ram and relief granted therein in his favour, are evident from Annexure R-4/A (colly), page 363 of the paper book of writ petition bearing CWP No. 1784 of 2010 (details whereof have been reproduced supra in paragraphs 3 and 4). Further, from a perusal of the judgment dated 15.12.1994 passed in Civil Suit No. 15 of 1992 filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh, whereby challenge was laid to the judgment and decree dated 31.5.1971 passed in Civil Suit No. 378 of 1969 by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Hamirpur, it is categorically evident from para 8 of the said judgment (page 370 of the paper book) that, as per the Jamabandi for the year 1971/72 (Exhibit D-3), the Gram Panchayat, Dhanwan had been shown in the ownership column qua Khasra No. 510, measuring 42 kanals 10 marlas, and the predecessor-in-interest of the applicant (late Sh. Prabhu Ram) had been shown as a Gair Marusi tenant.

Further perusal of the judgment dated 15.12.1994 passed by the learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Hamirpur, specifically para 8 thereof at page 371 of the paper book, reflects that the Sub Divisional Collector, Hamirpur on 18.11.1991, based on the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Hamirpur dated 31.5.1971, had incorporated the claim of the predecessor-in-interest of the present applicant (late Sh. Prabhu Ram) with respect to a portion of the suit land subject matter of the writ petition, depicting him to be in possession as a non-occupancy tenant in the revenue record.

Besides the afore-stated from a perusal of writ petition No. 1784 of 2010, specifically para 4 thereof, it is evident that it is an admitted case of the petitioners therein that the suit land came to be vested in the Panchayat as per the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961, prior to it having vested in the State of Himachal Pradesh in terms of the provisions of the H.P. Village Common Land (Vesting and Utilization) Act, 1974, which received the assent of the President on 29.8.1974. Admittedly, in the case at hand, Civil Suit No. 378 of 1969 filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the applicant had been decreed on 31.5.1971 prior to the coming into force of the H.P. Village Common Land (Vesting and Utilization) Act. The suit so filed had been decreed and the predecessor-in-interest of the applicant was held entitled to remain in possession of the suit land as a tenant in future on payment of Rs.10/- per year as rent and, further, by way of permanent injunction, the Gram Sabha concerned had been restrained from interfering in the possession of the predecessor-in-interest of the applicant. The possession of the applicant is being claimed on the aforesaid basis.

In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances while allowing the application, the learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the predecessor-in-interest of the present applicant had been held to be a tenant over part of the land owned by the Gram Panchayat by a competent Civil Court. Further since the suit land has vested in the State of Himachal Pradesh and it is the said vesting which is the subject matter of litigation in the writ petition, therefore, for a complete and effectual adjudication in order to settle all questions involved in the case at hand, the presence of the applicant before the Court is necessary and therefore the impugned judgement cannot be faulted with.

The plea of limitation has also been correctly rejected by the learned Single Judge, as the applicant is not seeking to establish a right but is only trying to protect the right which has accrued in his favour on account of adjudication by the Civil Court way back in the year 1971. The said judgment has attained finality and is binding on the Revenue Courts. As has already been stated supra, appropriate incorporations in the year 1991 had been made by the concerned Sub Divisional Collector in favour of the

Even otherwise, there is no challenge to the impleadment made in the connected writ petition, and therefore, there would be a contradiction if the order is interfered with.

In view thereof, the present appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.