Dismissed
State of Pb. and Ors. v. Kallu Din and Ors.
Punjab & Haryana HCRSA/2461/2006
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND…
What the court decided
AI extract
of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND…
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.
RSA No. 2461 of 2006
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 2461 of 2006 Date of Decision: January 20 , 2010
State of Punjab and others
...... Appellants
Versus
Kallu Din and others
...... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari
Present: Mr.Sartaj Singh Gill, DAG, Punjab for the appellants.
Ms.Kuldeep Kaur Ghuman, Advocate for the respondents.
Ajay Tewari, J.
This appeal has been filed by the State of Punjab against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents for permanent injunction restraining the State of Punjab and its functionaries from interfering in the property in dispute which comprises of a Masjid, a Kabristan and Gair Mumkin abadi.
The plea of the State of Punjab is that it had purchased the land from the Union of India in 1961 as unallotted evacuee land and that thereafter it was transferred to the Forest Department and that the Jamabandies from 1962 to 1979 clearly show that there is forest growth on the land in dispute. The Courts below, however, on a conspectus of the
RSA No. 2461 of 2006
2
entire evidence (including the statement of the Range Forest Officer as well as the report of a local commissioner) came to the conclusion that the existence of Masjid and Kabristan is proved as also the residences of the respondents in the area. The mere fact that the land was transferred as unallotted evacuee land would not entitle State of Punjab to alter the existing user. Further the person residing in the Gair Mumkin abadi could not be disturbed except in due course of law. Consequently both the courts decreed the suit.
The following questions have been proposed:-
iii)Whether the suit as proved is maintainable in a Ciivl Court? It would be seen that questions No. (i) and (ii) are pure questions of fact. Learned DAG has taken me through the findings of the Courts below recorded thereon but has not been able to persuade me that the said findings are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. In any case whatever plantation has been made by the Forest Department can co-exist with the Masjid, the Kabristan and the abadi without disturbing them. As far as question No (iii) is concerned, learned counsel has not been able to show how the present suit is not maintainable.
RSA No. 2461 of 2006
3
Consequently holding all the questions proposed against the
appellants, this appeal is dismissed.
(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE
January 20, 2010 sunita
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the existence of forest land could co-exist with a Masjid, Kabristan and residential abadi without disturbing them.
Whether the suit by respondents for permanent injunction was maintainable in a Civil Court.
Whether findings of lower courts on disputed facts could be set aside under Section 100 of the CPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Punjab
Kallu Din
Ajay Tewari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court