Municipal Council & Anr. v. Krishan Lal & Ors.

Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Defendants-Municipal Council, Ambala Sadar (now Municipal Corporation, Ambala) and State of Haryana have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by filing the instant revision to challenge order dated 27.03.2010 Annexure P-1 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala and appellate judgment dated 26.08.2010 Annexure P-2 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, thereby granting temporary to the plaintiffs/respondents. Plaintiffs have filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land measuring 70 kanals 4 marlas. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs claimed temporary injunction to the same effect by moving separate application. Plaintiffs have alleged that Secretary of State for India in Council, leased out the suit land to Joginder Singh for purpose of brick kiln. Joginder Singh transferred his lease rights in favour of Bihari Lal vide registered agreement dated

26.06.1930. Since then, Bihari Lal father of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and C.R. No.8115 of 2010 -2- grand-father of plaintiff No.3 remained in continuous possession of the suit land. On his death in the year 1970, plaintiffs came in peaceful possession of the suit land being his heirs and plaintiffs are in continuous possession of the suit land since then. Defendants have started claiming ownership over the suit land on the basis of some agreement dated 05.02.1977 transferring the suit land to State of Haryana (petitioner No.2). There is no conveyance deed in favour of the defendants executed by Government of India. However, defendants started interfering in possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. Consequently, plaintiffs filed a suit previously in which counsel for defendants made statement that the defendants shall not dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land forcibly and shall take possession in due course of law.

In view of said statement, the said previous suit was withdrawn. However, now again defendants started interfering in possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land, necessitating the filing of the instant suit. Defendants controverted the allegations of the plaintiffs. It was denied that Secretary of State for India gave the suit land on lease to Joginder Singh. It was also denied that Joginder Singh transferred the lease rights to Bihari Lal. It was pleaded that Joginder Singh had no such right to transfer to Bihari Lal or anybody else. The plaintiffs want to grab valuable Government land. Plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit land. State of Haryana has become its owner by virtue of agreement and notification dated 05.02.1977. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala vide impugned order dated 27.03.2010 Annexure P-1 allowed plaintiffs' application for temporary injunction and thereby restrained the C.R. No.8115 of 2010 -3- defendants from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land in any manner till final decision of the suit except by due process of law.

Appeal preferred against the said order by the defendants has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala vide impugned judgment dated 26.08.2010 Annexure P-2. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that plaintiffs have not produced on record any document regarding lease of suit land by Secretary of State for India in favour of Joginder Singh. This contention does not help the petitioners. There is registered agreement dated 20.06.1930 executed by Joginder Singh in favour of Bihari Lal regarding transfer of lease rights in the suit land. The said registered agreement executed about 80 years before the filing of the suit cannot be said to have been created or fabricated for staking claim in the suit land. For almost 80 years, the said agreement was not challenged by anybody.

In addition to the aforesaid, in jamabandi for 2004-05 and in subsequent girdwari till 2009, Bihari Lal predecessor of the plaintiffs has been depicted to be in possession of the suit land. These revenue entries are prima facie sufficient to prove possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. Besides it, in previous suit filed by plaintiffs, counsel for State of Haryana made statement that defendant shall not take possession of the suit land from the plaintiffs forcibly and that the defendant shall take possession in due course of law. The said C.R. No.8115 of 2010 -4- statement also depicts that plaintiffs are prima facie in possession of the suit land. Learned counsel for the petitioners half-heartedly contended that the aforesaid statement was made by counsel for State of Haryana in the previous suit erroneously. The contention cannot be accepted. It was a categorical statement on the basis of which the plaintiffs withdrew the said suit.

Moreover, there is nothing on record to depict that the said statement was made erroneously. There is another significant aspect of the matter. The defendants in the written statement or reply have not even pleaded that they are in possession of the suit land. Mere alleged transfer of ownership in favour of State of Haryana-defendant No.2 would not entitle the defendants to take forcible possession of the suit land from the plaintiffs, who are prima facie in established possession thereof. Consequently, Courts below have rightly granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders of the Courts below. On the contrary, the view taken by the Courts below is the only reasonable view that can be taken on the basis of the material on record. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine. However, nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the suit. As prayed for by counsel for the petitioners, the trial Court is directed to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible keeping in view its docket.

14.12.2010. A. Kaundal ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE