IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Regular Second Appeal No. 76 of 1999. Decided on: 19.12.2008. __________________________________________________ State of H.P. … Appellant. Versus Smt. Suwaru Devi and another. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. For Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1993 dated 10.11.1998. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this regular second appeal are that the respondents-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs for convenience sake) had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 2.12.1971 was illegal, wrong and without jurisdiction and seeking mandatory injunction directing the Deputy Commissioner to re-examine the application of Shri Saunu Ram. Shri Saunu Ram had applied for the grant of land under Bhakra Dam Oustees 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 Scheme. The Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur rejected the application on the basis of wrong report of R.R.O. Bilaspur. The suit was resisted by the State. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 27.2.1993. The plaintiff preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 27.2.1993 before the learned District Judge, Bilaspur. The learned District Judge, Bilaspur allowed the appeal on 10.11.1998. The regular second appeal preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur dated 10.11.1998 was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents herein filed before the trial Court was beyond the period of limitation? 2. Whether the order of the Deputy Commissioner refusing to grant land to the plaintiffs-respondents being Bhakra Dam Oustees under the Scheme without challenging the said order within a period of limitation has attained finality and if so, what is the effect of that order in the present appeal? The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court is not sustainable. Mr. Rajiv Jiwan has supported the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court. I have heard the parties and perused the record carefully. 3 The substantial questions of law framed being inter- connected and inter-linked are taken up together for hearing. The case set up by the plaintiffs is that their predecessor-in-interest had applied for grant of land being Bhakra Dam Oustee to the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur. The house of Shri Saunu Ram was acquired and compensation of Rs. 1155.75 paise was to be paid to him. However, the application preferred by Shri Saunu was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur on the basis of the report of R.R.O. Bilaspur. He had reported that neither the land nor house of Shri Saunu Ram was acquired. The plaintiffs were never informed of the decision taken by the Deputy Commissioner till 18.6.1990. The plaintiff Smt. Suwaru Devi (PW-1) has deposed that she moved an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur to verify about the application for allotment of land on the basis of the application submitted by her husband. She was informed on 3.7.1990 that the case stood rejected on 23.8.1975. She has placed on record the copy of the reply received from the Deputy Commissioner Ext. PA, copy of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure Ext. PB and copy of the award Ext.PC showing the acquisition of the house of Shri Saunu Ram in village Talwar. She has also placed on record copy of report of R.R.O. dated 24.11.1975 Ext. PD. The defendant could not point out from the records of this case that either Shri Saunu Ram or the plaintiffs were ever informed of the decision of the Deputy Commissioner dated 23.8.1975. It was necessary for the Deputy Commissioner to inform the plaintiffs or their predecessor about the outcome of the 4 application. It appears that the decision, whereby the application of Shri Saunu Ram was rejected, has been taken behind his back. The plea raised by the defendant-State that the records of the case have been destroyed (weeded out) cannot be accepted. If the records had been destroyed (weeded out), some record to this effect ought to have been maintained by the office of the Deputy Commissioner. No official witness has appeared to substantiate that the record was ever weeded out or destroyed. The First Appellate Court has rightly drawn adverse inference against the State. A bare perusal of Ext. PC, i.e. copy of award establishes that the house of Shri Saunu Ram was acquired for construction of Bhakra Dam. He was paid a sum of Rs. 1155.75 paise towards compensation. The R.R.O. Bilaspur has given the report that though house of the petitioner was submerged in the water, however, no award was made in his favour. This report of the R.R.O. is contrary to Ext. PC. It was only on the basis of this report that the case of Shri Sauna Ram was rejected. It is apparent that true facts have not been brought before the Deputy Commissioner which has resulted in the rejection of the application preferred by Shri Saunu. Consequently, it is held that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was within limitation from their acquiring knowledge about dismissal of the application in the year 1990 by the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur. The application of Shri Saunu Ram has been rejected on the basis of the report Ext. PD which is contrary to 5 Ext. PC. The First Appellate Court has rightly set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. In view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no force in this regular second appeal and the same is dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. December 19, 2008. (cr)