HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RSA No.: 200 of 2007 Reserved on: 14.3.2008 Decided on: 1.4.2008 Gupt Ram ………Appellant. Versus State of H.P. and another ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Ms.Bhawna Datta, Advocate. For respondent No.1: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For respondent No.2: Mr.Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J: This is a regular second appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree of the court of learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Kullu, dated 12.9.2006, vide which the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lahaul & Spiti at Kullu, dated 16.2.2005, dismissing the suit of the appellant for injunction, was upheld. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant as plaintiff filed a suit for injunction as against the respondents in regard to the land comprised in Khasra No.180/2 measuring 1-12 bigha. The plaintiff alleged that he was ___________ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - owner in possession of the entire land comprised in Khasra No.180 measuring 1- 14 bigha. Out of this, he gave a piece of land measuring 2 biswas about 15 years ago verbally to defendant No.1 i.e. State of Himachal Pradesh for construction of a school building. A building was raised over two biswas of land and now the management of the school is under the Gram Panchayat i.e. defendant No.2. He pleaded that the remaining land comprised in Khasra No.180/2 measuring 1-12 bigha continued to be in his possession and as such he is entitled to the grant of injunction as against the defendants in regard to this parcel of land. The defendants denied that the suit land was owned and possessed by the plaintiff. They pleaded that the land was owned by Devta Kalinag. The Deity through its Kardar Chet Ram had donated the entire land of this khasra number to the school in the year 1957 and the school building and the playground were raised over a part of said land. Thus, it was pleaded that the entire land since then is in possession of the school management for the last 47 years, hence the suit is liable to be dismissed. The learned trial court, on conclusion of the trial, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not owner in possession of the suit land and accordingly declined to grant the relief of injunction in favour of the plaintiff, which findings were affirmed by the learned first appellate court. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The appeal has not been admitted so far and it has to be considered as to whether there is any substantial question of law, which arises for - 3 - determination. Alongwith the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant had formulated following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether the entries made in favour of the appellant in the revenue record which are quasi-admissible can be ignored/disbelieved by the Ld. courts below? 2. Whether the respondents who are allegedly running the School on the suit land since 1957 were not aware of this fact that the possession of the School is not entered in the revenue record since 1957? 3. Whether the right of ownership in possession of the appellant can be declined merely on the ground that the appellant was not found in actual physical possession on the suit land comprising in Khasra No.180/2 at the time when PW-2 prepared the demarcation report? 4. Whether the evidence brought on record by the appellant can be ignored completely which fully corroborates the statement of the appellant/plaintiff? 5. Whether the respondents were not liable to produce the evidence on record to show their possession on the suit land since 1957? 6. Whether the respondents were not liable to produce Sh.Chet Ram or his legal heirs to testify their version regarding donation of the land in question by him to the respondents in the year 1957?” All these substantial questions of law are in regard to entries in the revenue record or the evidence led by the parties. No substantial question of law was raised either in these questions, so formulated, or during the course of arguments, to show that any material document or evidence was ignored by the learned trial court or the learned first appellate court or there has been any misreading of such evidence by either of the two courts. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that both the courts below have considered the ocular evidence led by both the parties, the statement of the Kanungo and report - 4 - proved by him as well as the latest copies of the jamabandi entries showing the entry of possession in favour of the school, which find corroboration from the report of the Kanungo discussed in evidence. I have been taken through the whole evidence and during the course of arguments, no such document or statement was referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant which was not considered by the courts below. Therefore, no case is made out for admission of the appeal since there has been no misreading of the evidence by the courts below and there can be no second appraisal of the evidence by this court while sitting in second appeal. Thus, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal since no substantial question of law was raised during the course of arguments and the appeal deserves dismissal. However, before parting with the judgment, I may point out that the learned Law Officer appearing for respondent No.1 had pointed out during the course of arguments that during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant had forcibly raised a Khokha over the playground, which is causing nuisance to the school and to the use of the playground by the students of the school. I have gone through the evidence and there was no mention of any Khokha existing over the suit land in the judgments of either of the courts below and it is clear that some construction has been raised by the appellant over the school playground unauthorizedly after passing of judgments. Therefore, in exercise of inherent powers of this Court, this Court is competent to pass order for removal of the said Khokha. - 5 - The learned trial court shall issue a notice to the appellant to remove the alleged construction made over the school playground over whole Khasra No.180, in any manner within one month of the notice, failing which, it shall appoint a Kanungo to go to the spot, demarcate the land and report about the nature of the construction existing at the spot made at the instance of the appellant, which shall be liable to be removed under the orders of the learned trial court in execution through court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs, alongwith the observations made above. A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial court for information. In view of the final disposal of the main appeal, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall also stand disposed of. April 1, 2008. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.