IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA RSA No. 305 of 1997 Date of decision:22.5.2008 ______________________________________________________ Sunder Ram Appellant Versus Amru Ram & others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant: Mr. Rajnish K. Lal and Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate with Ms. Charu Gupta, Advocate, for L.Rs of respondent No. 1. V.K.Ahuja, J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree of the Court of learned District Judge, Bilaspur, dated 3.9.1997, vide which he affirmed the judgment and decree of the Court of learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Ghumarwin, dated 4.1.1990, dismissing the suit of the appellant for declaration and permanent injunction and in the alternative for possession. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant as plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction and in the alternative for possession as against the original respondent Sant Ram, predecessor-in-interest of respondent No. 1 and State was Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 impleaded as defendant No. 2. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the land measures 7-15 Bighas comprised in Khasra No. 48/1 and 51 situate in village Gatwar and he applied for the grant of the same Nautor and the land measuring 7-15 Bighas was allotted to him in Nautor. The plaintiff improved the land. It was alleged that defendant No. 1 in collusion with defendant No. 2 i.e. State of H.P. got the suit land sanctioned in his favour measuring 2 Bighas 13 Biswas which is wrong and illegal as the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land, hence the suit filed by him. Defendant No. 1 pleaded that the suit land does not form part of the land granted to the plaintiff which is separate. Defendant No. 1 had pleaded that he is in possession of the suit land which was allotted to him as Nautor. Defendants pleaded that the suit land was granted to defendant No. 1 who is owner in possession and the land granted to the plaintiff is separate from the suit land, hence the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief claimed by him. On trial, learned trial Court concluded that the plaintiff was not owner in possession of the suit land and as such, was not entitled to the relief claimed by him. Those findings were affirmed on appeal by the learned first appellate Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The appeal was admitted by this Court on substantial question of law as framed by the appellant, namely, that the Financial Commissioner has no jurisdiction to cancel the grant made in favour of the appellant on the application of respondent 3 No. 1 and whether the grant made in favour of the appellant could be set aside on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation and that the evidence was misconstrued by the Courts below and as such, the appeal is liable to be admitted. On a perusal of the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, it is clear that the learned trial Court had held under Issue No.1 that the land allotted to the plaintiff was measuring 7-15 Bighas, whereas the suit land measuring 2-13 Bighas was allotted to defendant No. 1 and it was concluded by the Court that both these lands are separate parcels and there is no over lapping of any land over the land of other party. The learned trial Court had conclusively held that both the parties are owners in possession of respective pieces of lands which were allotted in Nautor and there is no question of interference by either of the parties in each other’s possession. Those findings were affirmed by the learned first Appellate Court in full, which also observed that the plaintiff was enjoying the possession of the entire suit land according to the defendants measuring 7-15 Bighas and defendant No. 1 was in possession of land measuring 2-13 Bighas which was separate parcel of land. The learned first Appellate Court has also referred to the oral and documentary evidence and discussed the evidence in full. During the course of arguments, no such oral or documentary evidence was referred to, which was not referred to or discussed by the learned first Appellate Court calling for reappraisal of the evidence by this Court in second appeal. Thus, from the above discussion, no case is made out for reappraisal of the evidence and the findings recorded by 4 both the Courts below are liable to be affirmed as there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. However, the plaintiff/appellant is at liberty to apply for demarcation of his land to the District Collector to clear the dispute, if any, in regard to the exact position of the suit land. The land shall be got demarcated by the District Collector as observed by the learned first Appellate Court in its judgment. With these observations, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. May 22, 2008 ( V.K. Ahuja ) (BSS) Judge