Mahinder Singh & Ors. v. Sale Tehsildar, Panipat & Ors.

Mr. J.S. Saneta, Advocate for the appellants. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) CM No.9653-C of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.3268 of 2010(O&M) This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby their suit for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed. As per the averments made in the suit, the State of Haryana issued a policy dated 11.7.1988 making a promise that whosoever was in unauthorized cultivating possession of rural evacuee property prior to Kharif 1985 would be sold such land at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per standard acre for which application was to be made by 24.10.1988. It was the further case of the plaintiff-appellants that the said date was extended later on to

13.2.1992 by a public notice. The plaintiff-appellants were in unauthorized RSA No.3268 of 2010(O&M) 2 cultivating possession of rural evacuee agricultural land measuring 7 kanals 6 marlas as detailed in the plaint prior to Kharif 1985 and being eligible under the aforesaid policy applied on 7.10.1988 for purchase of said land. According to the plaintiff-appellants, defendant-respondents No.1 and 2 were bound to sell and transfer the suit land in their name under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. However, the suit land was shown to be auctioned on 20.1.1988 in favour of respondent No.3 but the sale was not confirmed before the publication of the aforesaid policy and thus, the auction carried out on 20.1.1988 was illegal and not binding on the rights of the appellants. It was the further case of the appellants that confirmation of the said auction on 17.11.1988 was illegal and unlawful. Their request to transfer the suit land in their name was not acceded to. Hence, the present suit. Upon notice, respondents No.1 and 2 filed written statement raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was admitted that vide letter dated 11.7.1988, Haryana Government framed the policy as alleged. It was further admitted that the plaintiff-appellants applied to Tehsildar (Sales) for transferring the suit land on 7.10.1988, however, their application was rejected on 17.7.1989 because the suit land was already auctioned on 20.1.1988 in favour of defendant-respondent No.3 for a sum of Rs.30,000/- and the sale was also confirmed by the Additional Sales Officer (S) on 17.11.1998 after the decision of the civil suit filed by the father of the plaintiffs. Denying other averments, dismissal of the suit was prayed for. In his written statement, respondent No.3 stated that the appellants and their father were present at the time of auction of the suit land on 20.1.1988 and they never raised any objection before Tehsildar (Sales) as they were not in possession of the suit land. The appellants RSA No.3268 of 2010(O&M) 3 filed an appeal through their relative which was dismissed by the Additional Settlement Officer (Sales) on 12.4.1988. Revision against the said order was also dismissed on 11.11.1988. However, the appellants in collusion with some revenue officers obtained an illegal order regarding correction of khasra girdawari in their favour in spite of the fact that Surat Singh, father of the plaintiffs, was not in possession of the suit land. The order dated 31.10.1988 passed by the Assistant Collector Iind Grade for correction of khasra girdawari was illegal and not binding upon the rights of respondent No.3. The appellants had also filed a suit for permanent injunction on 12.11.1988 and the aforesaid plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on 24.8.1998. It was further averred that the plaintiff- appellants were not in actual cultivating possession. Denying other averments contained in the plaint, dismissal of the suit was prayed for. The plaintiffs filed replication reiterating and reaffirming the contents of the plaint and controverting the stand taken by the defendants. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court: “1. Whether defendants are bound to sell rural evacuee agricultural land measuring 7K-6M as detailed in the head note of the plaint?OPP

2. Whether auction of land measuring 7K-6M alleged to have been held after Kharif, 1985 is null and void and nonest in the eyes of law? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiffs are also entitled for consequential relief of permanent injunction on the grounds as alleged in the plaint? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD RSA No.3268 of 2010(O&M) 4

5. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD

6. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

7. Whether this court has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD

8. Relief.” After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved from the findings of the trial Court, the plaintiff- appellants filed an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court which was also dismissed. Still not satisfied, the plaintiff-appellants have approached this Court by way of instant appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgment and decrees of the Courts below. It is not in dispute that the alleged policy was released by the Government of Haryana on 11.7.1988 whereas the land in dispute was sold in open auction to respondent No.3 on 20.1.1988. The aforesaid order was challenged by the appellants by filing an appeal and revision and the same were dismissed. Not only this, the appellants also approached this Court by way of CWP No.16097 of 1997 which was dismissed on

15.1.1991 noticing the fact that the appellants have already filed a civil suit for permanent injunction with regard to land in dispute which was pending and if any further relief was required, the appellants may enlarge the scope of the civil suit filed by them. It is also not in dispute that the aforesaid civil suit was also rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. In view of the aforesaid facts, which could not be disputed by RSA No.3268 of 2010(O&M) 5 the learned counsel for the appellants, no interference is warranted in the findings recorded by the Courts below and I do not find any infirmity in the aforesaid judgment and decrees of the Courts below. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. August 20, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE