Decided On: 09.05.2025 vs Madan Lal And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 697 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Decided On: 09.05.2025 vs Madan Lal And Others on 9 May, 2025

Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan

Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan

                                                     1                                     ( 2025:HHC:14373)



        IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
                                          RSA No.122 of 2015
                                           Decided on: 09.05.2025


State of H.P. and others                                                 ........ Appellants


                                Versus
Madan Lal and others                                                     ......Respondents


Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1No
For the Appellants:                        Mr. Navlesh Verma, Ms. Sharmila Patial,
                                           Additional Advocates General and Mr. Raj
                                           Negi, Deputy Advocate General.

For the Respondents:                        Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate with
                                            Mr. Ajeet Jaswal, Advocate.


Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)

On 28.03 2025, this court passed the following orders:-

"A perusal of the judgment and decree passed by both the learned Courts below would go to indicate that order passed by the Financial Commissioner on 29.08.1991 and the order subsequently passed by the Collector, Theog on 30.09.1992 have been set-aside only on the ground of procedural irregularity in passing of such order and it is for this precisely that vestment of land in question measuring 858.05 bighas in favour of the State has been set-aside and the appellants/defendants have been restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the land in question except in

Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes

2 ( 2025:HHC:14373)

accordance with law. The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs in the year 1992 and decreed after a decade in the year 2002 and since then the litigation is continuing.

I have heard the matter for considerable time. I find that it was only on account of procedural irregularity committed by the revenue authorities that led to the decree. The only question being argued by learned Additional Advocate General is that learned Civil Courts do not have the jurisdiction and strong reliance is placed on Section 18 of the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, which reads as under:-

18. Bar of jurisdiction:- (1) No civil court shall have jurisdiction to-

(a) entertain or proceed with a suit for specific performance of a contract for transfer of land which affects the rights of the State Government to the surplus area under this Act; or

(b) settle, decide or deal with any matter which is under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Financial Commissioner, the Commissioner, the Collector.

(2) No order of the Financial Commissioner, the Commissioner or the Collector made under or in pursuance of this Act, shall be called in question in any court."

This argument of the learned Additional Advocate General only means that even as per the State, it is for the revenue authorities to decide this case. This is precisely what in fact has been done in the instant case by both the learned courts below. In case the State would have proceeded in accordance with law, it would been long time back that the issue raised in the present lis would have been long settled. Confronted with this, learned Additional General prays for and is granted two weeks' time to obtain instructions."

3 ( 2025:HHC:14373)

2. Today, learned Additional Advocate General has stated that he

is under instructions to argue the matter.

3 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also

gone through the material available on record.

4 The parties shall be referred to as the "plaintiffs" and

"defendants".

5 Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/respondents are the

legal heirs of one Shri Paras Ram, S/o late Shri Surat Ram. Deceased

Kubja, plaintiff No.12 was also legal heir of Smt. Marchi wife of Paras Ram.

Plaintiff No. 3, 6, 7 and 13 to 16 are also legal heirs of the deceased Smt.

Abloo, another wife of Sh. Paras Ram. Smt. Khakhoo was the mother of

Paras Ram. Smt. Khakhoo, Shri Paras Ram and plaintiff No. 1 to 9, Smt.

Marchi and Smt. Abloo were owner in possession of the land as described

in the orders of the lower Courts.

6 According to the plaintiffs, the aforesaid owners cultivated and

possessed the land separately and they did not constitute joint family on the

appointed date i.e. on 24/01/1971. When Himachal Pradesh Ceiling of land

Holdings Act, 1972 (for short, "the Act") came into operation, Sub-Divisional

Officer (Civil), Theog exercising the powers of the Collector under the Act,

issued notice to Smt. Khakhoo to file return. Thereafter, Smt. Khakhoo filed

the return before the Collector, Theog, but without knowledge and the

participation of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs subsequently came to know that

the Collector, Theog vide its order dated 27/01/1975 closed the proceedings

as no surplus area was found under the ownership and possession of Smt. 4 ( 2025:HHC:14373)

Khakhoo. Thereafter, the Financial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh

reopened the case vide its order dated 17/01/1976 after serving the notice

upon the plaintiff(s) or the affected parties and remanded the case to the

Collector, Theog for fresh decision.

7 In pursuance to the aforesaid order, the Collector, Theog after

issuing notice to Smt. Khakhoo and considering her objections, passed

order dated 21/09/1976, whereby he held Smt. Khakhoo to be entitled to

retain land which was recorded in her ownership and possession and Shri

Paras Ram, his wife, sons and daughters were held entitled to hold and

retain only two units i.e. 322-10 bighas of land and also directed that fresh

draft statement be prepared so that the objections of the recorded owners

could be heard and decided.

8 Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the plaintiffs filed an

appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division but the same

was also dismissed vide order dated 20/09/1983. The aforesaid order of the

Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division was challenged before the

Financial Commissioner, Shimla by way of filing Revision, but the same was

also dismissed vide order dated 29/08/1991. On the basis of the order of the

Financial Commissioner, H.P., Shimla, the Collector initiated the

proceedings and vide order dated 30/09/1992 declared 858-05 bighas of

land as surplus.

9 The aforesaid orders of the Financial Commissioner, H.P.,

Shimla and Collector, Theog were assailed by the plaintiffs by filing Civil Suit

bearing No. 197-1 of 1992 before the learned Sub-Judge 1st Class, Theog 5 ( 2025:HHC:14373)

on 02/11/1992 on the ground that the aforesaid orders of the Financial

Commissioner, H.P., Shimla and Collector, Theog are illegal and without

jurisdiction as the same had been passed without providing any opportunity

of being heard to the affected parties. They had also assailed the order of

Financial Commissioner, H.P., Shimla by pleading that the same is contrary

to the mandatory provisions of Sections 9 and 10 of the relevant rules of the

Act. They had also pleaded that draft statement as ordered by the Collector

on dated 17/01/1976 had not been prepared. This suit was decreed on

27/08/2002 in favour of the plaintiffs and the defendants/State had filed Civil

Appeal No.16-s/13 of 12/02, before the learned District Judge (Forest),

Shimla, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 29.06.2013.

10 Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned

Court below, the State has filed the instant appeal.

11 On 17.03.2015, the court admitted the appeal on the following

substantial questions of law:-

"1. Whether the Civil Courts could have decided the matter under dispute in view of the bar of jurisdiction under Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1972?

2. Whether the authorities of the State had violated the rules and provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1972 and have not acted accordingly, if so, its effect?

3. Whether there exists a non-application of mind by the First Appellate Court as the legality of findings other than maintainability arrived at by the Trial Court has not been gone into by the First Appellate Court and hence, a failure to adjudicate the core issues?"

6 ( 2025:HHC:14373)

12 Since all these questions are intrinsically interlinked and

interconnected, therefore, they have been taken up together for

consideration and are being answered by common reasoning.

13 Evidently, the only issue raised by the State in its appeal is the

lack of jurisdiction on behalf of the Civil Courts. However, it needs to be

noticed that such contentions were not gone unnoticed in the courts below

rather a specific issue i.e. issue No.5, was in fact framed by the learned trial

court, which reads as under:-

"Whether this court has jurisdiction?OPP."

14. A perusal of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court

below would go to indicate that the orders passed by the revenue agency

have primarily been set-aside only on the ground that these agencies/

authorities had not complied with the provisions of the Act and had not acted

in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure.

15 It would be apt here to reproduce issue No.1 as framed by the

learned trial court, which reads as under:-

"Whether the vestment order passed in favour of the State is illegal and void? OPP."

16 The learned trial Court while deciding this issue has accorded

the following reasons:-

"The plaintiffs have challenged the legality of the vestment order dated 30-9-92 passed by ld. Collector, Theog, whereby land measuring 858-05 bighas has been declared surplus and has been ordered to be vested in the State, mainly on the ground that in the absence of the compliance of mandatory provisions of section 9 and 7 ( 2025:HHC:14373)

10 of H.P. Ceilings on Land Holding Act, 1972, order dated 30-9-92 Ex. Dl which in turn has been passed on the basis of order dated 29- 8-91 Ex. P38 passed by ld. Financial Commissioner, H.P., Shimla, could not be sustained. They have also pleaded that they have not been given any opportunity of being heard by the Revenue Officers, so all the orders passed right from ld. Collector, Theog to F.C. H.P., Shimla could not be sustained. The defendants have not disputed the passing of these orders but they have pleaded that the same are legal and binding and have been passed after providing every opportunity of being heard to the affected parties. So in view of the pleadings of the parties, following admitted facts have emerged out therefrom, that vide order dated 27-1-75 Ex. P35 which is also exhibited as EX.D4, ld. Collector, Theog, after conducting proceeding under the H.P. Ceiling on Land Holdings Act had concluded that no surplus land was existing in the ownership of Smt. Khakhoo, that order Ex. P35 was set aside by ld. Financial Commissioner H.P., Shimla vide its order dated 17-1-76 exhibited as Ex.P34 whereby ld. Collector, Theog was directed to rehear the matter and decide the same afresh, that in pursuance of the order Ex. P34, ld. Collector, Theog, reopened the case and after hearing Smt. Khakhoo passed order dated 21-9-76 Ex-P31 which is also exhibited as Ex. D3, whereby he concluded that Smt. Khakhoo is a "separate unit" and does not hold any surplus land in here ownership and possession and directed that a fresh draft statement be prepared so as to elicit the option of the affected owners: that order Ex. P31 was challenged by way of appeal before ld. Divisional Commissioner who vide his order dated 20-9-83 Ex. P36 which is also exhibited as Ex. D2 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order Ex. P31 and that in revision preferred against order Ex. P36, ld. Financial Commissioner, H.P., Shimla, vide its order dated 29-8- 91 Ex. P38 dismissed the revision petition whereby he upheld the orders passed by the lower revenue officers and directed that there was no necessity to publish the draft statement again and directed to take into consideration the position of the land as stood on 24-1-71, 8 ( 2025:HHC:14373)

the "appointed day" under the Ibid Act, and that on the basis of order Ex.P38, ld. Collector, Tehog has passed order dated 30.09.1992 Ex. D1 whereby he has ordered the vestment of land measuring 858-05 bighas in the State. Perusal of order dated 27-1- 75 Ex. P35 shows that it was only Smt. Khakhoo who had filed the return in the prescribed form C-A. Perusal of order dated 21-9-76 Ex. P31 passed by ld. Collector, Theog, shows that vide this order Id. Collector had disallowed the objections raised by Smt. Khakhoo and had held her as a "separate unit" as defined under the act and held that no surplus land is existing in her ownership and also that Sh. Paras Ram, his wives, sons and daughters are entitled to retain two units i.e. 322-10 bighas of land. It has already been stated above that the aforesaid order has been affirmed by the higher revenue officers. To properly appreciate the controversy in question, regard has to be given to the provisions of H.P. Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. Section 8 of the Ibid Act deals with the procedure for selection of permissible area by the land owners. This Section if taken into consideration alongwith Rule 4 of H.P. Ceiling on Land Holdings Rules provides that the land owner is required to file return in Form C-II within six weeks from the date of 22-11-73 i.e. the date of notification of Rules. Section 9(2) deals with the contingency where the land owner fails to select the permissible area in accordance with provisions of Section 8. It provides that the Collector may after collecting the information select the permissible area of such land owner. Proviso thereof provides that no such order shall be made without giving the person Ibid Rules deals with the procedure which is required to be followed by the Collector when the land owner fails to file the return in accordance with Section 8 and Rule 4. Rule 8 of the Ibid Rules provides that the Collector shall cause the return to be filed up by the patwari concerned, who in turn shall forward the same to circle Kanoogo who in turn shall after examination forward the matter to Tehsildar or Naib Tehsildar. Rule 9 of the Ibid Rules provides that the Collector shall prepare a draft statement after satisfying himself as to the correctness of the 9 ( 2025:HHC:14373)

particulars supplied to him in Form C-II either by the land owner or by the revenue field agency and that thereafter he shall publish the same in form-V in his office and forward the copy thereof to the affected land owners and after hearing their objections, if any, filed within 30 days of the service, he shall prepare the final statement as per Section 10 (3) and Rule 10. So on the basis of the aforesaid provisions of law, it could be held that the aforesaid provisions are mandatory in nature so as to assess the surplus area of the land owner. Now the question arises as to whether these provisions of law have been complied with in the present case. To appreciate this aspect of the case, available on record is Ex. D7, the draft statement filed in Form C-V. Perusal of this document shows that this statement pertains only to Smt. Khakhoo. There is no other documentary evidence on record to show that any draft statement had been prepared by the revenue field Agency pertaining to the lands of Paras Ram or that of the plaintiffs. It appears that ld. Collector was fully conscious of this fact and that is why he in his order Ex. P31 had directed for the preparation of the draft statement. So the order dated 29-8-91 Ex. P38 passed by ld. Financial Commissioner, Shimla whereby he had directed the id. Collector, Theog to determine the surplus area on the basis of the draft statement already prepared, prima facie appears to be contrary to the provisions of Section 9 and 10 of the Ibid Act and thus the same to that extent could not be legally sustained. Consequently, order dated 30-9-92 Ex.D1 passed by Collector, Theog, on the basis of the order dated 29-8-91 Ex. P38, also suffers from the aforesaid legal infirmity and thus the same could not be legally sustained. So in view of the discussion made above, it could be held that the order dated 29-8-91 Ex. P38, passed by ld. Financial Commissioner, H.P., Shimla and Ex. D1 order dated 30-9-92 passed by ld. Collector, Theog, are illegal to the extent stated above. As regards the plea of the plaintiffs that they have not been given an opportunity of being heard, there is no record to show that they have been condemned unheard as necessary evidence in the form of documentary 10 ( 2025:HHC:14373)

evidence pertaining to the above proceedings, has not been produced by the plaintiffs. So, these issues decided accordingly."

17 Even the first Appellate Authority while affirming findings of the

learned trial Court in paras No. 13 & 14 of its judgment accorded the

following reasons:-

13. The main question before this court canvassed by the parties is whether the authorities have failed to comply with the provisions of act and rules and the Civil Court has got jurisdiction. The relevant provisions of the Act are reproduced as under:-

"Section 10.

Submission of statement to Collector- (1) On the basis of the information given in the return under Section 8 of the declaration furnished under Sub Section (1) of Section 9 which shall be duly verified through such agency as may be prescribed or the information obtained by the Collector under Sub Section (20 of Section 9, the Collector shall prepare the draft statement in the manner prescribed showing among other particulars the total area of land owned or held by such person the specific parcels of land which a person may retain by way of permissible are or exemption from ceiling and also the surplus area.

(2) The draft statement shall be published in the office of the Collector and a copy thereof shall be sent upon the person or persons concerned in the form and manner prescribed. Any objections received within 30 days of the service shall be duly considered by the Collector and after affording the objectors an opportunity of being heard, the Collector shall pass such order as he may deem fit.

(3) A draft statement shall be made final in terms of the order of the Collector or the order if any passed in appeal, revision or review, as the case may be.

Section 9 of Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holding Rules, 1973.

11 ( 2025:HHC:14373)

Sec.9. Draft statement under Sub-Section (10 of Section 10- (1) After satisfying himself as to the correctness of the particulars mentioned in Form C-II, the Collector shall prepare a draft statement mentioned in sub Section (1) of Section 10 of the Act in Form C V. (2) The statement in Form C-V shall be published in the office of the collector and a copy thereof shall be forwarded immediately by the Collector to the person or persons as if it were summons from the Revenue Officer. Any objection received within 30 days of the service shall be duly considered by the Collector and after affording the opportunity to objectors, of being heard, the Collector shall pass such order as he may deem fit.

Section 10. Final Statement- The final statement under sub Section (3) of Section 10 of the Act shall be in form C-V which shall be adopted subject to the modification that the word 'Draft' and the form of endorsement appearing therein shall be omitted."

14. On perusal of provisions of Act and Rules, it is evident that the authorities had not complied with the provisions of Act and Rules. After coming into operation of the Act, Smt. Khakhoo Devi had filed return Ext.P35 dated 27.01.1975, however, no surplus land was found in her ownership. Even after remand of the case by learned Financial Commissioner vide order dated 17.01.1976 Ext. P34 no surplus land was found in her possession by the learned Sub Divisional Collector, Theog vide order dated 21.09.1976. The learned Collector had found that Paras Ram and his wives, sons and daughters were entitled only 2 units, i.e. 322-10 bighas and remaining land was declared surplus. As per the Act and Rules, draft statement was required to be prepared and published, however, the defendants failed to prove that draft statement, as required under Section 10, was prepared and published. As per Section 8, after coming into operation of the Act, every person was required to furnish detail of his land and separate units within prescribed period on prescribed form and also selection of land not exceeding the 12 ( 2025:HHC:14373)

permissible area which he desires to retain. Section 9 prescribed an affidavit has also to be sworn within the period prescribed. Thereafter, as per Section 10, Collector is required to prepare draft statement in the prescribed manner which is to be published by the Collector as prescribed in the Rules in Form C-11 and C-V. Objections can be filed within 30 days after publishing the draft statement, which have to be considered by the Collector before passing of the order. The draft statement Ex.D-7 was prepared qua Khakhoo. No evidence has been led by the defendants to prove that draft statement qua Paras Ram and other plaintiffs was prepared despite the fact that collector vide order Ex P-31 had directed to prepare the draft statement which was mandatory requirement of law."

18 In the celebrated decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

regarding the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in Dhulabhai etc. versus State of

Madhya Pradesh and another, AIR 1969 Supreme Court 78, it was

categorically held that where the statute gives a finality to the orders of the

special tribunals, jurisdiction of Civil Court must be held to be excluded if

there is adequate remedy to do what the civil courts would normally do in a

suit. However, it has been further held that such provision, however, does

not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not

been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with

the fundamental principles of judicial procedure.

19 It shall be apt to re-produce para No.32 of the judgment, which

reads as under:-

"32. Neither of the two cases of Firm of IilluriSubayya, 1964-1 SCR 752= (AIR 1964 SC 322) or Kamla Mills, 1966 1 SCR 64= ( AIR 1965 SC 1942) can be said to run counter to the series of cases 13 ( 2025:HHC:14373)

earlier noticed. The result of this inquiry into the diverse views expressed inquiry in this Court may be stated as follows:

(1) Where the statute gives a finality to the orders of the special tribunals the civil court's jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil courts would normally do in a suit. Such provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. (2) Where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the court, an examination of the scheme of the particular Act to find the adequacy or the sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relevant but is not decisive to sustain the jurisdiction of the civil court. Where there is no express exclusion the examination of the remedies and the scheme of the particular Act to find out the intendment becomes necessary and the result of the inquiry may be decisive. In the latter case it is necessary to see if the statute creates a special right or a liability and provides for the determination of the right or liability and further lays down that all questions about the said right and liability shall be determined by the tribunals so constituted, and whether remedies normally associated with actions in civil courts are prescribed by the said statute or not.

(3) Challenge to the provisions of the particular Act as ultra vires cannot be brought before Tribunals constituted under that Act. Even the High Court cannot go into that question on a revision or reference from the decision of the Tribunals. (4) When a provision is already declared unconstitutional or the constitutionality of any provision is to be challenged, a suit is open. A writ of certiorari may include a direction for refund if the claim is clearly within the time prescribed by the Limitation Act but it is not a compulsory remedy to replace a suit.

(5) Where the particular Act contains no machinery for refund of tax collected in excess of constitutional limits or illegally collected a suit lies.

14 ( 2025:HHC:14373)

(6) Questions of the correctness of the assessment apart from its constitutionality are for the decision of the authorities and a civil suit does not lie if the orders of the authorities are declared to be final or there is an express prohibition in the particular Act. In either case the scheme of the particular Act must be examined because it is a relevant enquiry.

(7) An exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court is not readily to be inferred unless the conditions above set down apply."

20 Similar re-iteration of law can be found in State of AP V/S

Manjeti Luxmi Kentha Rao AIR 2000 SC 2220, Rajsthan State Road

Transport Corporation and another V/S Bal Mukand Bairwa, 2010 (1)

Civil Court Cases 545 (SC). Similar view was taken by the full bench of this

Court in Chuhniya Devi Vs. Jindu Ram 1991 (1) Shimla Law Cases 223.

21 Learned Additional Advocate General has taken me through the

entire record, but has not been able to convince that the procedure as

prescribed by law has been followed by the statutory Tribunal.

22 Section 10 of the Act reads as under:-

"Section 10.

Submission of statement to Collector- (1) On the basis of the information given in the return under Section 8 of the declaration furnished under Sub Section (1) of Section 9 which shall be duly verified through such agency as may be prescribed or the information obtained by the Collector under Sub Section (20 of Section 9, the Collector shall prepare the draft statement in the manner prescribed showing among other particulars the total area of land owned or held by such person the specific parcels of land which a person may retain by way of permissible are or exemption from ceiling and also the surplus area.

15 ( 2025:HHC:14373)

(2) The draft statement shall be published in the office of the Collector and a copy thereof shall be sent upon the person or persons concerned in the form and manner prescribed. Any objections received within 30 days of the service shall be duly considered by the Collector and after affording the objectors an opportunity of being heard, the Collector shall pass such order as he may deem fit.

(3) A draft statement shall be made final in terms of the order of the Collector or the order if any passed in appeal, revision or review, as the case may be.

23 The record reveals that after coming into operation of the Act,

Smt. Khakhoo Devi had filed return Ext.P35 dated 27.01.1975, however, no

surplus land was found in her ownership. Even after remand of the case by

Financial Commissioner vide order dated 17.01.1976 Ext. P34 no surplus

land was found in her possession by the Sub Divisional Collector, Theog as

is evident from order dated 21.09.1976. The Collector found that Paras

Ram and his wives, sons and daughters were entitled to only 2 units, i.e.

322-10 bighas and remaining land was declared surplus. As per the

provisions of the Act and Rules, draft statement was required to be prepared

and published.

24 Admittedly, the State has failed to prove that such draft

statement as required under Section 10 was ever prepared let alone its

publication as it was mandatory.

25 As per Section 8 of the Act, every person after coming into

operation of the Act was required to furnish detail of his land and separate 16 ( 2025:HHC:14373)

units within prescribed period on prescribed form and also select land not

exceeding the permissible area which he desires to retain.

26 In terms of Section 9, an affidavit was required to be sworn in

within the prescribed period. Thereafter, as per Section 10, the Collector

was required to prepare draft statement in the prescribed manner as

provided in the rules in Form C-II and C-V. Thereafter, objections could be

filed within 30 days after publishing the draft statement, which have to be

considered by the Collector before passing of the order.

27 No doubt, the State did place on record draft statement Ex.D-7

prepared qua Khakhoo, however, no evidence was led by the State to

prove that draft statement qua Paras Ram and other, plaintiffs was in fact

prepared despite the fact that there were specific directions to this effect by

the Collector vide order Ex.P31.

28 Obviously, in such circumstances, both the Courts below have

committed no illegality by setting-aside the orders passed by the revenue

authorities and still protected the rights of the State by restraining the State

from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the land as defined in annexure A,

except in accordance with law. Meaning thereby that the State was free to

evict the plaintiffs-respondents in accordance with law, but strangely enough

the State has not chosen to do so but has cantankerously contested the suit

for over three decades from the date of institution and more than two

decades from the date of passing of the decree by the learned Trial Court.

The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly.

17 ( 2025:HHC:14373)

29 In view of aforesaid discussions, I find no merit in the instant

appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending

application(s), if any.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) th 09 May, 2025. Judge (yogesh/pankaj)