IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA R.S.A. No. 642 of 2000 Date of Decision: 19.05.2010 __________________________________________________________ Sh. Gopala. …..Appellant/Plaintiff Versus State of H.P. and others. ….Respondents/Defendants. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No __________________________________________________________ For the Appellant: Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/plaintiff against the judgment of two Courts below declining relief of injunction to the plaintiff against respondents Nos. 2 to 6, who purportedly interfering in the possession of the plaintiff. The suit of the plaintiff was partly decreed for that portion of the land which had been allotted to him under Nautor Rules. 2. The appeal was admitted on substantial question of law which reads: “Whether the courts below have erred in not granting relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants No. 2 and 3 from 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?Yes 2 interfering in the possession of the appellant of the suit land minus 3-12 bighas of which he is the owner in possession; in view of his settled possession over that portion of the suit land?” While passing this order of admission, this Court also granted ad interim injunction in favour of the appellant restraining respondents 2 to 6 (who have since been proceeded ex parte) from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff/appellant. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that if he was in possession of the land, a decree for injunction was but a natural consequence. So far as the legality of his possession is concerned, the question is already being adjudicated in proceedings for ejectment instituted by the State under Section 163 of the Land Revenue Act. Since proceedings under Section 163 have been instituted by the State of Himachal Pradesh, it is but obvious that the appellant is in possession of this land. From the record, I do not find that respondents No. 2 to 6 have been able to make out any case for declining injunction to the appellant. A party in possession is entitled to protect it against all except the true owner. The State claims to be the true owner of the disputed land except for the portion which has been allotted to appellant by virtue of Annexure P-7, which has not been challanged by any party. In these circumstances, this appeal is allowed. The respondents No. 2 to 6 are prohibited from interfering in the possession of the appellant. Of course, it goes without saying that so far as the proceedings initiated by the State under Section 163 of the Land Revenue Act, shall not in any manner be affected by this order. Appeal disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. All miscellaneous applications disposed of. All interim orders are vacated. May 19, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), (KRS) Judge 3