IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: RSA.No.84 of 1997. Date of Decision :25th June, 2008. Vipul Malhotra and others. …Appellants. Versus: State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice R.B.Misra,Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting?1 For the appellants: Mr.Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. . For Respondent. Mr.Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. Advocate General. R.B.Misra, J(Oral). The appeal was initially admitted for consideration of the substantial questions of law indicated in memo of appeal. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 2. Civil Suit No. 91 of 1993 was filed before the learned Senior Sub Judge, Kullu for the following reliefs: “(i) That the plaintiff may be declared to be owner in possession of the suit plot, bearing No.26 having dimensions 60’ x 25 ½’ measuring 270 Sq. yards in the Urban Estate Manali, Tehsil and District Kullu which is shown by letter ABCD in the site plan attached with the plaint; 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 (ii) That the State of H.P. may be restrained from causing any interference in the aforesaid ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit plot, through its employees servants and agents etc. by re-alloting the suit plot to any body else and in any other manner whatsoever; (iii) That the order No.89 dated 5.3.1974 of Estate Officer Manali purporting to cancel the allotment and forfeiture of 25% sale consideration may be declared null and void ab-initio and non existent in the eye of law; (iv) The defendant may be directed to receive the balance payment in the sum of Rs. 3060/- along with permissible interest” 3. On framing of the issues and taking into consideration the material on record and evidence, learned Senior Sub Judge, Kullu vide its order dated 30th March, 1996 had adjudicated all the issues and had also adjudicated issue No.4 whereby it was specifically indicated: “Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit, as alledged?” and has arrived at a finding that in view of Section 20 of the H.P. Urban (Development and Regulation) Rule, 1968 which provides as below: “Bar of jurisdiction of courts:--No order made or direction given by the State Government or any authority in exercise of any power conferred by or under this Act shall be called in question in any Court”. 4. In view of the above provisions of law, the learned Senior Sub Judge, Kullu was not having jurisdiction in 3 the subject matter of controversy. Such finding of fact and adjudication of issue No.4 was affirmed subsequently by learned Additional District Judge, Kullu in its order dated 16th December, 1996 passed in Civil Appeal No.13/1996. In view of the concurrent finding having arrived at by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Kullu and by Additional District Judge, Kullu on the point of lack of jurisdiction to entertain Civil Suit No.91/93, no substantial question of law can be framed in the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has fairly submitted that in view of Section 20 of the H.P. Urban (Development and Regulation) Rule, 1968 the Civil Suit is not maintainable. In view of the aforesaid observation, the present Regular Second Appeal is also dismissed. (R.B.Misra), Judge. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. June 25, 2008(R) 4