Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RSA No.360 of 2001. Date of Decision: May 24, 2011. Gauri Parshad. … Appellant. Versus Union of India & Others. ... Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellant : Mr. Ashwani K.Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. A.K.Bansal, Addl.Advocate General, for respondents No.2 and 3. None for respondent No.1. Surinder Singh, J (oral): The plaintiff was unsuccessful in both the Courts below, as such filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was admitted on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the courts below have misread and mis- appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record, more specifically Ext.D1 to Ext.D5 and Ext.DW4/A and DW4/B to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff holding that he is not owner in possession of the suit land and the entries recording the defendant as owner are not wrong and illegal?” 2 2. Heard and gone through the record. 3. Precisely, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit seeking declaration and confirmation of his possession, against the defendant-respondent No.1, on the grounds that he has been owner in possession of the suit land, but on 1.12.1992, when he obtained the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1990-91 from the Patwari Halqa, he came to know that the land has been shown in the ownership and possession of the Central Government. According to him, the said entry is wrong and illegal. It was neither acquired by the Central Government nor he received any compensation. He had issued notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the defendants. When his grievance was not redressed, he filed the suit. 4. The defendants-respondents contested the suit and took up various preliminary objections, like limitation, jurisdiction and questioned the locus-standi of the plaintiff to file the suit. It was contended that the land in question was acquired for the construction of the National Highway No.21 in accordance with law and after acquiring the land, compensation was paid 3 to the interested parties. The persons who did not receive the compensation, their shares were deposited in the Treasury vide Challan No.706 dated 25.9.1968, thereafter the mutation No.75 was attested and accepted in favour of the defendants and the plaintiff did not challenge the said mutation within limitation, thus the relief claimed by him cannot be granted. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the leaned trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land? …OPP. 2. Whether the entries recording the defendants as owner are wrong and illegal? …OPP. 3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?...OPD. 4. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? …OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? ...OPD. 6. Relief. 6. After complete trial, issues No.1, 2, 4 and 5 were answered against the plaintiff, consequently the suit was dismissed. 7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court, the plaintiff unsuccessfully filed the appeal before the First 4 Appellate Court, as such present second appeal by him. 8. Learned First Appellate Court re-examined the oral evidence as well as the documentary evidence of the parties. Plaintiff placed on record the Jamabandi for the year 1970-71 (Ext.P7), Jamabandi for the year 1975-76 (Ext.P8), Jamabandi for the year 1985-86 (Ext.P6), Jamabandi for the year 1990-91 (Ext.P4), whereas defendants have placed on record the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1975-76 (Ext.DY), Jamabandi for the year 1980-81 (Ext.DZ) and Jambandi for the year 1985-86 (Ext.DX). 9. The suit land is comprised of Khasra No.526/26 measuring 0-5-0 bighas and Khasra No.528/27 measuring 0-1-0 bighas. The plaintiff is unable to link the suit land with the revenue record referred to hereinabove. 10. Jamabandi Ext.P7 refers to Khasra No.26 which was entered in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff and Khasra No.27 of which plaintiff was not the owner and Khasra number mentioned in Jamabandies Exts.P6 and P8 does not reflect the ownership and possession of the plaintiff, whereas Jamabandi Ex.P4 5 mentions the ownership and possession of the Central Government through C.P.W.D. and Ext.P-5 is also not in regard to the suit land. In this way, the plaintiff has failed to link the suit land and prove that he has been owner in possession of the suit land, whereas DW-3 Lekh Ram Naib Tehsildar proved Mutation No.75 Exts.D-1 to D-5, which was attested and accepted on 25.5.1975 whereby the Mutation was attested in favour of the defendants with respect to the land acquired by the defendants. Ext.DW4/A proved by DW-4 Shri Parma Nand, Record Keeper shows that the compensation which was awarded in favour of the plaintiff with respect to his land was deposited in the Treasury. Thus, the solitary statement of the plaintiff pitted against the documentary evidence referred above, claiming himself to be owner in possession of the land without proving so is devoid of any merit and further there is no challenge to the Mutation in the name of the State Government within the stipulated time. 11. In the totality of circumstances, I do not find that the Courts below have misread and mis- appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence with respect to documents referred to above to prove 6 the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land as alleged. The substantial question of law is accordingly answered. The appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed with costs. May 24, 2011. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.