The High Court dismissed the appeal from a suit seeking permanent injunction against HUDA for constructing a boundary wall. The Court held that the appellant failed to prove ownership or title to the suit land, rendering prior litigation with a different authority irrelevant.
The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
RSA No.1208 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
RSA No.1208 of 2009 Date of Decision: 21.10.2009
Pohap Singh .....Appellant
Vs.
Hayana Urban Development Authority through Estate officer
....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
Present : Mr. Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
RAJIVE BHALLA, J
The appellant challenges the judgements and decrees dated 14.9.2006 and 10.9.2008, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad and the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, dismissing his suit and his appeal respectively.
The appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the respondent Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Huda') from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit land by constructing a boundary wall from point D' to `J-1' through D.C. BA J1 as depicted in the site plan. The appellant pleaded that he is owner in possession of the property marked by the letters A,B,F,G,H.I,J situated within the abadi of village Sihi, Tehsil Ballabhgarh, Distt. Faridabad. He has constructed rooms and shops and is in possession of this property. The appellant further alleged that the property marked as X Y Z Z was
2
RSA No.1208 of 2009
demolished by the Faridabad Complex Administration. A suit filed with respect to this property was decreed by Sub-Judge, Ballabhgarh on 12.10.1977. An appeal against this judgement was dismissed on 2.12.1979. The Faridabad Complex Administration filed an ejectment application against the appellant and others, which was also dismissed as was the appeal. As the property was demolished, a contempt petition is pending as is a suit for damages. The appellant has filed another suit, as he apprehends demolition of another part of his property shown as X X Y Y. It is prayed that despite the aforementioned orders and proceedings, the respondent is bent upon constructing a wall and, therefore, respondent should be restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession.
In response, the respondent pleaded that the suit land is a part of Khasra No.153 of village Sihi and has been acquired by the State of Haryana and possession has been taken. The appellant has no right, title or interest in the suit land. It is further averred that proceedings between the appellant and the Faridabad Complex Administration do not bind the respondent. After considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the trial court dismissed the suit. The appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed.
Counsel for the appellant submits that he is in possession of the suit land. As the suit land is situated within the abadi of the village, the appellant is owner in possession and, therefore, the findings recorded by the courts below to the contrary are legally and factually incorrect. It is further argued that the findings that the appellant has failed to establish ownership disregard the old possession of the appellant which is by itself sufficient to warrant an injunction. It is further submitted that the report submitted by
3
RSA No.1208 of 2009
the local Commissioner Ex.PW-2/3 shows that the appellant is in possession of the suit land, the report could not have been rejected. It is further argued that the first appellate court recorded a finding that the respondent had failed to prove that the suit land was acquired, the appeal should have been accepted.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned judgements and do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below that the appellant has no right, title or interest in the suit land.
The findings recorded by the courts below that the appellant is not entitled to any injunction to prevent the Huda from raising the wall do not suffer from any error. The finding that the suit land was not acquired was held to be irrelevant in view of the fact that the appellant has failed to prove his ownership and, therefore, his entitlement to an injunction. As stated herein above, the appellant has failed to produce any evidence as to its ownership with respect to the suit land. The prior litigation with the Faridabad Complex Administration is irrelevant for the present controversy, as admittedly it does not relate to the present property.
In view of what has been stated herein above, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
( RAJIVE BHALLA ) JUDGE
21.10.2009 GS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to an injunction preventing the HUDA from constructing a boundary wall on the suit land.
Whether the prior litigation with the Faridabad Complex Administration binds the respondent HUDA regarding title to the current property.
Pohap Singh
Haryana Urban Development Authority through Estate officer
RAJIVE BHALLA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
