Dismissed

Bhullan v. Prem

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Jan 2012RSA/824/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In the second appeal regarding possession of land allotted under the Haryana Ceiling Act, the High Court dismissed the appeal. It held that since the Collector's orders declaring the land surplus were illegal and void, the appellant had no valid title. Consequently, the lower court decree upholding the defendants' rights stands affirmed.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment and decree are affirmed.

Bhullan Vs Prem — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

RSA No. 824 of 1999 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.1.2012.

Bhullan

--Appellant

Versus

Prem & others

--Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.

¶9

Present:Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant.

¶10

Mr. S.N. Gaur, Advocate for the respondents.

¶11

¶12

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J (ORAL)

¶13

The plaintiff-appellant is in second appeal before this Court having been unsuccessful in both the courts below.

¶14

The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for for a decree of possession of the land detailed in para no.1 of the plaint challenging the validity of the judgement and decree dated 30.8.1983 passed in civil suit no.316 of 1981 titled as Shish Ram Vs. State of Haryana. It was pleaded that the plaintiffappellant had become owner and had remained in possession of the suit land till 18.2.1985. A plea had been taken that he had been dispossessed from the suit land forcibly. As per contention of the plaintiff-appellant the land in dispute had been declared surplus and allotted to the plaintiffappellant by the competent authority under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. It was further pleaded that the actual possession had been delivered by the competent revenue authority on 13.8.1980 and the mutation had also been sanctioned in his favour accordingly. The validity of the judgement and decree dated 30.8.1983 passed in civil suit no.316 of 1981 titled as Shish Ram Vs. State of Haryana was being impugned on the

¶15

RSA No. 824 of 1999 (O&M)

¶16

-2-

¶17

ground that the plaintiff-appellant was not a party to the proceedings of the suit and no opportunity had been given to him of being heard and as such the judgement and decree would not be binding upon him. Upon notice the defendants-respondents filed the written statement and it was pleaded that the plaintiff-appellant is neither owner nor in possession of the suit property. It was further pleaded that the order of the Collector vide which the land of the defendants-respondents had been declared surplus had been set aside. The defendants had contended that it was the State of Haryana which had been a necessary party to the proceedings in civil suit no.316 of 1981 and that the plaintiff was not a necessary party. Upon the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

¶18

“1. Whether the plaintiff is owner and remained in possession of the suit land? If so, to what effect?OPD.

¶19

Whether the judgement and decree passed in civil suit no.316 of 1981 dt. 30.8.1983 titled as Shish Ram Vs. State of Haryana passed by Manjit Singh, Sub Judge II Class, Karnal is void, inoperative and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff? If so, to what effect?OPP

¶20

Whether the physical possession of the suit land was delivered to the plaintiff vide rapat dt. 13.8.1980. If so, to what effect?OPP

¶21

Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD

¶22

Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD.

¶23

Whether the value of the suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction is wrong? OPD.

¶24

Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties and cause of action?OPD

¶25

Whether the suit is barred by the principle of resjudicata?OPD

¶26

Whether the suit is barred under order 23 rule 1 C.P.C as alleged?OPD.

¶27

Relief.”

¶28

RSA No. 824 of 1999 (O&M)

¶29

-3-

¶30

The suit of the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed by the trial court and being dissatisfied even the appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant stands dismissed by the first appellate court vide judgement and decree dated 15.10.1998.

¶31

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record.

¶32

As regards the question of possession is concerned, the courts below have clearly noticed that there was no controversy that the land in dispute had been declared surplus by the competent authority and the same had been allotted to the plaintiff-appellant vide allotment letter dated 26.7.1978 (Ex.P-6). Ex.P-1 would show that the possession of the land in dispute measuring 25 kanal 12 marla stood delivered to the plaintiffappellant by Sh. Sant Lal, Kanungo in the presence of the Patwari. Accordingly, mutation no.1858 (Ex.P-2) stood sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff-appellant regarding ownership of the land. Copy of the jamabandi for the year 1982-1983, Ex.P-3 and the entries recorded therein were also in favour of the plaintiff-appellant regarding ownership and possession of the suit property. After passing of the civil court decree in favour of the defendants-respondents and against the State of Haryana the entries were again changed in favour of Shish Ram, predecessor in interest of the defendants-respondents. PW-2 Halqa Patwari stated on oath that he had signed the entries in the rapat roznamcha dated 13.8.1980 but made no reference regarding delivery of possession in favour of the plaintiffappellant. PW-2 in his cross-examination stated that regarding the act of delivery of physical possession at the spot, it is only the Kanungo, who can make a statement. The first appellate court has further noticed that Sh. Sant

¶33

RSA No. 824 of 1999 (O&M) -4-

¶34

Lal, Kanungo has not been examined by the plaintiff-appellant. The version of the plaintiff-appellant that he had been dispossessed from the suit property has also been disbelieved. When he appeared in the witness box as PW-3, he only stated that the possession had been obtained forcibly but could not tell the date, month and year when he was forcibly dispossessed by the defendants-respondents. The court below has also noticed that there is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff-appellant had ever filed a complaint to the police or other authorities regarding his dispossession from the suit property. As such the concurrent findings of the courts below based on appreciation of the evidence on record is that the act of physical possession of the land in dispute had never come to vest in favour of the plaintiff-appellant.

¶35

The judgement and decree dated 30.8.1983 had been assailed by the plaintiff-appellant on the plea that he had not been impleaded as a party to the proceedings of civil suit no.316 of 1981 titled as Shish Ram Vs. State of Haryana. In this regard, suffice it to say that persons settled as tenants after the declaration of land as surplus area would automatically loose the rights upon the declaration of such surplus area having been set aside. Clearly a tenant gets a right in the surplus land upon allotment only, if, such order passed by the Collector regarding the land in dispute being surplus is a valid order. The orders passed by the Collector dated 25.5.1960 and 30.10.1961 declaring the land in dispute as surplus have been held to be illegal and void. The judgement and decree dated 30.8.1983 passed in civil suit no. 316 of 1981 stands affirmed up to this Court. A reference in this regard is being made to the decision dated 2.1.2012 rendered in RSA No. 2821 of 1984, wherein the second appeal preferred by the State of Haryana

¶36

RSA No. 824 of 1999 (O&M) -5-

¶37

has been dismissed and the orders dated 27.5.1960 and 30.10.1962 declaring the suit land to be surplus have been held to be violative of the provisions of the Punjab Securities of Land Tenure Rules, 1956. In the light of such factual position, wherein the suit land allotted to the plaintiffappellant on the basis of the same having been declared surplus and such order of the Collector having been held to be bad in law and the same having been affirmed by this Court itself, there would be no scope of interference with the impugned judgement in the present second appeal.

¶38

No question of law much less substantial question of law arises

¶39

for determination in the present second appeal.

¶40

In view of the reasons recorded above, the appeal must fail and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶41

Appeal dismissed.

¶42

(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE

¶43

16.1.2012.