1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT v. RSA-2234-2022
Case Details
Page 1 of 6 6 (cid:1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 118 Tika Ram @ Te @ Teeka Ram & Others Subrati & Oth Others Vs. RSA-2234-2022(O&M) Date of decision: 06.05.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Navmohit Singh, Advoc for the appellants. dvocate *** NIDHI GUPTA, CM-7711-C-20 PTA, J. 2022 This is an application for n under Section 151 CPC for condonation o on of delay of 26 days in re-filing the the appeal. After going through the on, the contents of the application, which is supp upported by affidavit of learned c he ed counsel for the applicant, the same is allow llowed subject to all just exception - tions and delay of 26 days in re- filing the prese resent appeal is condoned. MAIN CASE
Legal Reasoning
The defendants no.1 to 4 nst to 4 are in second appeal against the concurren rrent judgments and decrees of ow s of the learned Courts below whereby the he suit filed by the plaintiffs/respo for spondents No.1 and 2 herein, for declaration an and permanent injunction has bee rts s been decreed by both the Courts below. SUNENA 2025.05.09 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 2. The parties shall hereinaft Page 2 of 6 6 (cid:1) eir inafter be referred to as per their status before ore the learned trial Court i.e. the nts the appellants as the “defendants No.1 to 4”; an ; and respondents No.1 and 2 as the s the “plaintiffs”. 3. Brief facts of the case are a are that the plaintiffs had filed a suit seeking de g declaration to the effect that the py the impugned entries in the copy of Jamabandi ndi for the year 1977-78 and 2007 he 007-08 showing the name of the Daya Kishan in an in column No.5 as alleged Gair as air Maurusi qua the suit land as described in th in the plaint as alleged Narmot, and ear and in the Jamabandi for the year 2007-08 are w re wrong and illegal. The plaintiffs a nt s also sought relief of permanent injunction to to restrain the defendants from or rom raising any construction or fencing wire o ire over the suit property; as also rel to o relief of mandatory injunction to direct the def defendants No.5 and 6 to correc ue rrect the entries in the revenue record. 4. It is y submitted by learned counsel for he the appellants/def /defendants that the suit land wa in was auctioned on 21.12.1976 in favour of Day Daya Kishan against the highest b ion st bid of Rs.5,100/-. The auction purchaser pai paid Rs.1,275/- as earnest mon nd money on 21.12.1976 itself and further depos eposited Rs.225/- on 25.01.1983 84. 83 and Rs.500/- on 26.06.1984. However, auct auction was not accepted, and re by re-auction order was passed by Settlement Of t Officer on 25.08.1977; whereupon ion pon land was again put to auction on 25.01.1983 1983; and Daya Kishan offered Rs.6 ed Rs.6,000/- and he had deposited the difference ence of earnest money i.e. Rs.275/ as 275/-. However, this auction was SUNENA 2025.05.09 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) also set aside side by the competent authority Page 3 of 6 6 (cid:1) . ity vide order dated 17.02.1984. Thereafter, lan r, land was auctioned again and pre ow previous auction purchaser now offered sum o m of Rs.8,000/-. Subsequently, the s on the suit land was put to auction on 09.11.1976. T 6. The Settlement Officer ordered on ed re-auction of this land on 22.12.1976, w 6, which was appealed against by re by the auction purchaser before the Deputy Se y Secretary-cum-Settlement Comm eal mmissioner, Haryana. The appeal was dismissed ssed in default on 25.03.1977. There ed hereafter, the land was auctioned on 17.08.1984 1984 for a sum of Rs.2,000/- in fav er, favour of Shiv Charan. However, the same was was not approved by Additional Sett his Settlement Officer (Sales) vide his order dated 21 d 21.09.1984 and the earnest mon ed money of Rs.500/- stood refunded to auction pu purchaser. It is submitted that fro ar t from the above facts, it is clear that the suit l uit land was purchased by predece he decessor-in-interest/father of the appellants nam namely Daya Kishan s/o Shiv Cha nly Charan. It is for this reason only that the reven evenue authorities had entered the he the name of Daya Kishan in the revenue recor cord. 5. It is submitted that the in therefore, as per the entry in revenue recor ecord the land is of abadi deh. The er e land was allotted to the father of the appella pellant in the year 1976 but the a ot he auction proceedings were not accepted thou though his father deposited 25% o er 5% of the amount. Then another auction procee oceeding was again held in 1982, an er , and again the appellants’ father was highest bi st bidder for Rs. 5000. Thus, appella he pellants were in possession of the suit property f rty from 1976 onwards. The father he ther of the appellant had paid the SUNENA 2025.05.09 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) entire amount ount though conveyance deed was Page 4 of 6 6 (cid:1) of as not executed but the status of appellants as m as mourusi was admitted. 6. It is further submitted t to d that the trial court failed to appreciate tha that to protect their possession a s n and ownership right appellants filed a suit aga against respondents no 3 and 4. T on 4. The said suit was dismissed on 06.07.2015 by 5 by the court of Civil Judge Faridab as idabad. Thereafter the appeal was preferred whi which was partly allowed and the as the possession of appellant was protected. Th . Thus, the appellants being in pos ed possession cannot be restrained from using pro property as owner as they are in co he in continuous possession from the year 1976 on onwards. It is accordingly prayed be ayed that the present appeal be allowed and nd the impugned judgments and ed and decrees passed by learned Courts below b low be set aside. 7. 8. No other argument is made ade on behalf of the appellants. I have heard counsel for th he or the appellants and perused the case file in gre great detail. I find no merit whats ed hatsoever in the arguments raised on behalf of th of the appellants. 9. It is the case of the appella ed pellants that the land was allotted to the father o her of the appellants in auction. Ho nd . However, it is admitted fact and finding on rec record that the said auction stood ale ood cancelled. Admittedly, no Sale Deed was eve ever executed in favour of the ap ey e appellants. Even earnest money was not com completely paid by Daya Kishan/f he /father of the appellants. The appellants are are laying claim to the suit land ion and only on the basis of auction SUNENA 2025.05.09 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) notice withou hout any allotment letter or Sale De Page 5 of 6 6 (cid:1) to e Deed or any other instrument to this effect be being in their favour or in favo - favour of their predecessors-in- interest. There here is a clear, categoric and cogen he gent evidence on record that the entry in the na e name of Daya Kishan in the Jamab s a mabandi for the year 1977-78 is a stray entry an y and is not supported by any do ve document. The defendants have failed to estab stablish their ownership rights over ion ver the suit property. The auction of the land of d of which the defendants claim the as themselves to be owners of, was never accepte epted by the competent author he thority. Even possession of the defendants ov s over the suit land was not proved. rd ved. The receipts placed on record by DW2 does oes not show the possession of the he the defendants No.1 to 4 over the suit property rty as allottees. Those receipts ar ice s are regarding the auction price only. No sale sale was ever confirmed by any c in y competent authority neither in favour of Daya Daya Kishan nor in favour of the a ter he appellants. No allotment letter was issued in d in their favour. The land is owned nt ned by Rehabilitation Department i.e. defendant dants No.5 and 6. The trial Court a eld rt and Appellate Court have held that since the the sale was never confirmed by th ny y the competent authority at any point of time me nor the father of the defendant he dants No.1 to 4 had deposited the entire sale con consideration amount then the def no defendants No.1 to 4 have got no right, title and and interest over the suit propert se perty. Moreover, merely because father of defen efendants No.1 to 4 may have dep in deposited some earnest money in all three au tle auctions, would not entitle them as to be declared as owners/allot lottees of the suit property unle is unless and until the auction is SUNENA 2025.05.09 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) approved by by competent authority. Both the Page 6 of 6 6 (cid:1) he the Courts below have given the finding that t at the wrong entries have been m nts en made in favour of appellants which are req required to be corrected. The app he appellants are not owners of the suit land there therefore they have no right to rais ing raise any construction or fencing wire over vac vacant portion of land bearing kh is g khasra No.31. Nature of land is that of evac evacuee property i.e. public land gly land which has been wrongly encroached up d upon by the appellants. 10. Learned counsel for the a te e appellants is unable to dispute or controvert t ngs. ert the aforesaid facts and findings. 11. 12. 06.05.2025 Sunena
Decision
In view of the above, prese resent appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s) if an if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge Whether speaki Whether report eaking/reasoned: Yes/No Yes/No portable: SUNENA 2025.05.09 10:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)