IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA. No. 74 of 2002. Date of Decision: 23.5.2011. _______________________________________________ Dhani Ram. ….Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. and others. ….Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1?.No. For the petitioner: Mr.G.C.Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent-1: Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, J(Oral). This appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein against the concurrent findings of the two courts below dismissing his suit for a decree of declaration that he is the owner in possession of the land as described in the plaint. 2. The case pleaded by the plaintiff was one of lawful Nautor grant having been made to him by the State and consequently having been put in possession of the land. 3. On the pleadings, the learned trial Court settled twelve issues. Primary and crucial was with respect to the ownership and possession of the land by the plaintiff. This Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment.yes. 2 issue was tried together with the second and third issues which related to the entitlement of the plaintiff for a decree of declaration and a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction. On the settled issues, the learned Court holds that the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 3.6.1990 allowing the prayer of the appellant for regularization of his possession on the land as an encroacher, which was later on reviewed the order in review was legal. 4. The plaintiff appealed. The learned appellate Court re-appreciated the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that the plaintiff-appellant had not raised any orchard on the land as pleaded by him and the appeal was rejected. This appeal was admitted on seven questions of law: “1. Whether the findings recorded by both the courts below are vitiated on account of mis-reading and mis-appreciation of the pleadings of the parties. 2. Whether the material controversy arising out of the pleadings of the parties have neither been considered nor determined and there has been error or exercise of jurisdiction by both the courts below. 3. Whether the order of grant of Nautor land in favour of the appellant by the Tehsildar Ghumarwin dated 16.8.19985 having not been assailed within the period of limitation therefore the same became final and the subsequent order for cancellation for this grant is without jurisdiction. 4. Whether on the basis of order of grant of Nautor as passed by the Tehsildar dated 16.8.1985 the appellant continue to be owner in possession of the suit land. 5. Whether both the courts below have acted illegally by failure to grant of relief of injunction against because admittedly the appellant is in possession of the suit land. 3 6. Whether findings as recorded by both the courts below are erroneous and illegal on account of mis-reading and mis- appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence on record. 7. Whether the order of grant of Nautor land could not be cancelled without seeking condonation of delay and the subsequent orders regarding regularization of the alleged encroachment is also valid.” 5. On the fist three questions, I find that the learned courts below have considered the point on the evidence as recorded holding against the plaintiff/appellant. They are questions of fact. I do not find any mis-appreciation or mis- reading of the evidence. In fact, if the case is considered in its entirety, what I find is that the appellant had himself filed an application for regularization of his occupation on the land on the submission made before the Deputy Commissioner on an application that he was an encroacher. 6. In these circumstances, the Courts below were correct in holding that no decree for declaration of ownership could be granted to him when the appellant himself admitted that he was an encroacher. Questions 4 to 7 also require to be answered against the appellant. He accepts the ownership of the State and his status as an encroacher when he filed application Ext.P10 on the record. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 7. On the plea of the learned counsel for the appellant that he should not be ejected from the land in dispute except in accordance with law, all that I need say is that it is the settled law that even a person purportedly in 4 illegal possession of the land, is entitled to be ejected there from only in accordance with law. Form the order passed by this Court on 7.1.2010 in CMP. Nos. 978 and 979 of 2009, this Court holds: “By means of these applications, the applicant has prayed that the respondents be restrained from interfering in the possession of the suit land and also from changing the revenue entries. Both the courts below have come to a finding of fact that the appellant is not in possession of the suit land. Therefore, no interim relief can be granted in favour of the appellant. It is however, clarified that the change, if any, made in the revenue entries shall be subject to the result of this appeal.” 8. In these circumstances, I do not see how such plea can be raised but in any event on the question of law it is settled that eviction will follow compliance of due process of law. Appeal disposed of. No order as to costs. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. May 23,2011(R)