IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RSA No. 521 of 2009 Date of Decision : May 3, 2010 Sh. Mani Ram Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant : Mr. Rupinder Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. For the respondents : Mr. R. M. Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/State. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The plaintiff has assailed the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. Plaintiff’s civil suit No. 60-K/1 of 2002, titled as Mani Ram versus State of H.P. and others stands dismissed in terms of judgment and decree dated 2.6.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. His Civil Appeal No. 50-S/13 of 2008, titled as Mani Ram versus State of H.P. and others also stands dismissed in terms of judgment and decree dated 6.8.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Solan, H.P. Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Plaintiff claims to be owner of the suit land. The state of Himachal Pradesh acquired this land and entry recording the name of H.P.P.W.D. in the revenue record vide mutation No. 311 dated 28.4.1983 was made. The land was acquired for the purpose of construction of road. Plaintiff encroached upon part of the suit land and the State of Himachal Pradesh initiated ejectment proceedings against the plaintiff under Section 163 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954. The warrant of eviction was issued against the plaintiff on 22.2.2001. The trial Court, after due consideration of the relevant material on record came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had no right, title or interest over the suit land and consequential ejectment proceedings initiated by the State were absolutely in accordance with law. 3. The lower appellate Court has concurred with the findings of the trial Court. 4. There is no dispute that the plaintiff has not challenged the entries of mutation before the revenue authorities. That apart, record reveals that entire acquisition proceeding actually stood concluded in the year 1971 itself and even the compensation stood received by the original owners from whom the plaintiff is alleged to have purchased this land. Ext. D-11 indicating the persons who have received compensation stands validly proved on record. The same cannot be said to be forged. The award acquiring the land was passed on 16.7.1971. The land in question was purchased by the 3 plaintiff’s mother some time in the year 1971 from Sh. Bala Ram resident of Village Kiari. 5. Hence the Courts below have rightly rejected the plaintiff’s claim. The entire record has been considered. There is neither any illegality nor any perversity in the impugned judgments and decrees. 6. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for consideration in the present appeal. Hence the appeal is dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. May 3 2010 (PK)