High Court of Punjab And Ha D Haryana
Case Details
Page 1 of 15 15 (cid:1) IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 211 RSA-3448-2010(O&M) Date of decision: 24.04.2025 Maha Laxmi A mi Agro Industries Corporation Vs. ...Appellant(s) Punjab State S ate Small Industries and Export Cor Corporation Ltd. ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Anupam Mathur, Advo for the appellant. dvocate ate Mr. Suvir Kumar, Advocate for the respondent. NIDHI GUPTA, PTA, J. *** CM-13072-C- -2014 This is an application unde nder Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 C 1 CPC for placing on record the su e subsequent events/documents by way of add additional evidence. Notice of motion. Mr. Suvir Kumar, Advocate cate accepts notice on behalf of the responde ndent and submits that he has n as no objection if the present application is a n is allowed. After going through the co e contents of the application and in view of the the above undisputed position, pr n, present application is allowed and Annexure cord. ures A2 and A3 are taken on record SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) MAIN CASE The plaintiff is in second a nt nd appeal against the concurrent Page 2 of 15 15 (cid:1) judgments and s and decrees of the learned Courts led urts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintif intiff for declaration that he be de of e declared lessee in possession of the suit plot; a lot; and for permanent injunction re m on restraining the defendant from dispossessing sing the plaintiff, has been dismissed ssed by both the Courts below. 2. The parties shall hereinaft eir inafter be referred to as per their status before t
Legal Reasoning
ore the learned trial Court i.e. the a nd he appellant as the “plaintiff” and the responden dent as the “defendant”. 3. Brief facts of the case as at as set out in the plaint, are that plaintiff was a as allotted plot no.10-B, Focal Poi .66 Point, Moga, measuring 4166.66 sq.yds. by the the respondent Corporation vide it se e its letter dated 19.5.78 on lease for 99 years for an amount of ₹83,335/–. Th to The possession was delivered to the plaintiff v iff vide letterNo. P.S.S.I.C./C.E/685 ms 6850 dated 3.6.78. As per terms and conditions tions of allotment, plaintiff was requ 0% required to make payment of 20% of the amoun ount within 30 days. However, he ver, plaintiff failed to make the necessary pay payments despite several notice he tices. As such allotment of the plaintiff was c as cancelled. A civil Suit No. 530 on 530 of 26.11.97 was decided on 17.3.98 by the y the court of Civil Judge, Moga, w he a, wherein the possession of the plaintiff was u as upheld. Arbitration proceeding w nt. ng was decided against defendant. Subsequently, ntly, on 10/13.9.1997 defendant-Co nt Corporation gave advertisement (Ex.P15) in newspaper Punjab Kesari Ja in n ain i Jalandhar vide which certain SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) relaxations w s were given to the defaulters. Page 3 of 15 15 (cid:1) aid ters. In pursuance of the said advertisement ent plaintiff gave a telegram to .97 to the defendant on 16.9.97 requesting the the defendant to convey what are - t are the dues against plot No. 10- B and that he t he was ready to deposit the same re ame. After that again letters were issued to def defendants' personal representat he ntation to the Chairman of the defendant cor t corporation was made but all in va ral in vain. Plaintiff also made several visits to the re he responsible officers but they wit ot with mala fide intention did not allow the plain plaintiff to avail the opportunity/ fa ter y/ facility granted to the defaulter vide advertise rtisement dated 13.9.1997. Defen er efendant filed a petition under Public Premise mises Act against the plaintiff in th ich n the court of S.D.M. Moga which was decided ed ex parte on 24.2.1995. Appeal p er eal pending before Commissioner Ferozepur wa was illegal, null and void and ag tiff d against principles. The plaintiff always remain mained ready and willing and still r he till ready and willing to make the entire payme yment, and he is not liable to b in to be ejected being a lessee in possession in n in pursuance of the order dated re ted 24.2.1995 but defendants are threatening p g plaintiff to dispossess him for he forcibly. Plaintiff requested the defendant no t not to take law into in his own ce wn hands but all in vain, hence present Civil S ivil Suit was filed on 01.06.1999. 4. Upon notice, the defenda ed ndant-Corporation had appeared and resisted ted the suit by filing written sta ing statement inter alia submitting therein that t at the plaintiff was in unauthoriz in orized possession of the plot in dispute which hich is a public premise. The defe er defendant filed a petition under SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Section 5 and and 7 of the Public Premises a Page 4 of 15 15 (cid:1) nt es and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Ac Act 1973 in the court of S.D.M of .D.M. exercising the powers of Collector, Mo Moga, and it was allowed by th ed y the Collector vide order dated 24.2.1995. Pla . Plaintiff filed an appeal before Co . It e Commissioner Ferozepur also. It was pointed ted out that even the date for p to r payment was extended up to 15.10.97 whe where the opportunity to deposit to osit the money was granted to defaulter but but the plaintiff failed to deposit the t is the amount due from him. Suit is barred by prin principle of res judicata because a he se another Civil Suit filed by the plaintiff on th n the same subject matter has alre ivil already been decided by the Civil Judge (Junior nior Division) Moga vide judgme ed gment and decree sheet dated 17.3.1998. On . On merits, it was admitted that nd at plot No. B-10 was allotted and possession giv n given to plaintiff. It is admitted th ee d that vide judgment and decree sheet dated 17.3.1998 possession of plaintiff me ntiff was upheld. But at the same time it was o as ordered that defendant Corpor to rporation would be at liberty to secure his eje ejectment by taking due process gs ess of law. Then the proceedings for ejectmen ent of the plaintiff was initiat ry, itiated wherein Joint Secretary, Industries-cum cum-Arbitrator gave his Award dat he dated 5.11.1981 and upheld the cancellation o n of the allotment. It is submitted ion itted that defendant filed eviction proceedings a gs against the plaintiff and it w he it was allowed in favor of the defendant. Th t. The remaining averments of t nd of the plaint were denied and submitted tha that suit of the plaintiff is witho be ithout merit and is liable to be dismissed. SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 5. Replication was filed by Page 5 of 15 15 (cid:1) he by the plaintiff wherein the averments ma s made in the plaint were reitera he iterated and those made in the written statem atement were denied. 6. On the basis of pleadings o es gs of the parties, following issues were framed ed by the learned trial Court:- “1. Whether plaintiff is entitle ed titled to declaration as prayed for?OPP. fo 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitle as ntitled to permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP. 3. Whether this court has no jurisd jurisdiction to try this suit?OPD. 4. Whether the suit is barred by pr by principal of res judicata? OPD 5. Relief.” 7. On the basis of pleading ary adings and oral & documentary evidence addu adduced by the parties, learned tr o.1 d trial Court decided issues No.1 and 2 against t inst the plaintiff and in favour of the nst f the defendant; issue No.3 against the defendan dant; issue No.4 against the pla he plaintiff and in favour of the defendant and and accordingly, vide judgment a , nt and decree dated 16.01.2008, learned trial C ial Court dismissed the suit of the he f the plaintiff.Appeal filed by the plaintiff was d as dismissed by the learned lower ial wer Appellate Court with special costs of Rs.5 Rs.5,000/- vide judgment and de nd decree dated 21.04.2010; and judgment and and decree under appeal was up nd s upheld. Hence, present second appeal by the the plaintiff. SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 8. It is y submitted by learned counsel Page 6 of 15 15 (cid:1) he the for appellant/plai plaintiff that in pursuance to the ad , e advertisement dated 13.9.1997, the appellant lant had sent a telegram dated 16 - d 16.09.1997 to the respondent- Corporation e n expressing his readiness and w ire d willingness to make the entire payment and and praying that he is not liable to in le to be ejected being a lessee in possession of n of the disputed plot. It is repe ed repeatedly submitted by learned counsel for the r the plaintiff that in the present cas by t case, the precise relief sought by the appellant lant was that he be granted a decre ew ecree for declaration that in view of the policy licy of the respondent-Corporation he ation dated 13.09.1997 since the appellant was was ready and willing to deposit th nt, it the entire outstanding amount, he could not not be ejected in pursuance of the he the order dated 24.02.1995. The appellant led led overwhelming documentary as ow y as well as oral evidence to show that he has be s been requesting time and again t ion ain to the respondent-Corporation to intimate hi e him the outstanding amount so ed so that the amount is deposited and allotment ent is regularised. However, the r an he respondent-Corporation in an illegal and ma mala fide manner did not intima nd timate the total amount due and instead kept th pt the matter pending which necess nt cessitated the filing of the present suit. The lear learned Courts below, thus, have ing have ignored the overwhelming documentary ary evidence which fact has occas he ccasioned failure of justice to the appellant. 9.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the pla he e plaintiff further submits that the respondent au t authorities have restored the allo nt allotment made to the appellant SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) vide letter dat dated 02.05.2012 (Annexure A2) Page 7 of 15 15 (cid:1) ed 2) on payment of dues calculated in terms of the f the new Policy and on deposit of t nt of the entire outstanding amount as claimed by by the respondent authorities. In p er In pursuance to which, final order dated 21.12.2 12.2012 (Annexure A3) has been pa nt n passed, restoring the allotment of the plot in t in favour of the plaintiff howeve es ever, subject to payment of dues calculated in t in terms of new Policy (Annexure its ure A2). Learned counsel submits that as the he plaintiff had made numerous - us requests to the respondent- Corporation t n to intimate him the outstandi ay anding amount so that he may deposit the sa e said amount in pursuance to adv , advertisement dated 13.09.1997, the plaintiff is is entitled to, and may be permitt in rmitted to pay outstanding dues in terms of adve dvertisement dated 13.09.1997, an of , and not as per the new Policy of 2012. 10. The said submissions on are on behalf of the plaintiff are opposed by le by learned counsel for the defend its fendant-Corporation who submits that it is writ l rit large on the record of the case ed ase that the plaintiff was afforded several and nu d numerous opportunities by the d ear he defendant-Corporation to clear the outstandin nding dues. However, the needful tiff dful was not done by the plaintiff for years toge together. It is further admitted on he on instructions that plot of the plaintiff has b as been restored to him however, in ver, the restoration should be in terms of the l he latest Scheme. It is further poin as pointed out that no evidence has been led by th by the plaintiff to show that any co by y communications were made by him to the De e Department for payment of outst as utstanding dues. The plaintiff has SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) failed to dem demonstrate his readiness and Page 8 of 15 15 (cid:1) sel nd willingness. Learned counsel accordingly pr ly prays for dismissal of the present a ent appeal. 11. 12. No other argument is made ade on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned couns ed ounsel for the parties and perused the case file in ile in great detail. 13. Brief facts of the case are ble e that the suit plot describable as Industrial P ial Plot No.10B situated at Focal Po he al Point Moga was allotted to the plaintiff vide ide Allotment Order dated 19.05 of 9.05.1978 (Ex.P4) for a sum of Rs.83,335/-. A . As per the conditions of the Allo as Allotment Letter, the plaintiff was to deposit 20 t 20% of the premium price of i.e. of the plot within 30 days i.e. Rs.16,667/-. However, admittedly, the pla ut plaintiff deposited only about Rs.5,667/-. Pla Plaintiff was issued various notices .P4 tices by the defendant being Ex.P4 to Ex.P9 to ma o make the payment due, however, e, ver, to no avail. In the meantime, the plaintiff fi iff filed a Civil Suit No.530 dated 2 nt d 26.11.1997 seeking permanent injunction tha that the defendant be restrained fr iff. d from dispossessing the plaintiff. Vide judgmen ment and decree dated 17.03.1998 as 998 the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. How However, in the said suit the court ion ourt did not express any opinion upon the orde order of cancellation but passed a d uld d a decree that the plaintiff would not be disposs possessed from the suit property ex y except in due course of law. 14. Accordingly, as the plaintiff 0% intiff had still failed to deposit 20% of the premi emium price, his allotment was - as cancelled by the defendant- Corporation vi n vide registered letter dated 29.09 he 9.09.1978 (Ex.D6). Thereupon, the SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) plaintiff move oved for arbitration; in which pr Page 9 of 15 15 (cid:1) rd proceedings Arbitration Award dated 05.11.19 1.1981 (Ex.D7) was passed against ry, inst the plaintiff by Joint Secretary, Industries-cum cum-Arbitrator and cancellation ld. tion of allotment was upheld. Thereafter, th r, the defendant filed a petition un he n under Sections 5 and 7 of the Public Premise mises Act before the Sub-Divisiona as ional Magistrate, Moga which was also allowed v ed vide order dated 24.02.1995 (Ex. (Ex.D15). 15. In the meantime, the def nt defendant issued advertisement dated 13.9.19 9.1997, permitting defaulters to m by o make the payment of dues by 30.9.1997. Ins Instead of making the payment e ff nt even at this stage, the plaintiff instead filed ed the present suit on 1.6.1999 pray in praying for declaration as lessee in possession of n of the suit plot; and for perman he manent injunction restraining the defendant fro from dispossessing the plaintiff. Fi uit First and foremost, present suit of the plainti aintiff was not maintainable as un ad s undisputedly. The plaintiff had previously also also filedCivil Suit No.530 dated 2 nt ed 26.11.1997 seeking permanent injunction in in respect of the present suit plo ion t plot. Moreover, the declaration sought by the the plaintiff in the present suit, as L uit as Lessee in possession of the suit plot, could no not be given as allotment of the dy he suit plot to the plaintiff already stood cancelle celled vide order dated 29.09.1978 ( ver 78 (Ex.D6), which order has never been challeng nged by the plaintiff. 16. It may also be pointed ou he d out that in the present suit the plaintiff had f ad filed an application under Order ich rder 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC which was allowed b ed by the learned trial court vide ivil vide order dated 10.8.1999. Civil SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Appeal No.24 .24 of 11.12.1999 filed by the def Page 10 of 15 15 (cid:1) he defendant was dismissed by the learned Distric istrict Judge, Faridkot vide order da he r dated 27.11.2002. However, the Civil Revision ion No.1154 of 2003 filed by the re the defendant-Corporation before this Court wa was accepted and vide order date ed dated 26.8.2004, the order dated 10.8.1999 was was set aside. Said order dated 26 urt d 26.8.2004 passed by this Court read as follow llows: – “The defendant is in revision pe the n petition aggrieved against the order pa er passed on an application under O by er Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 filed by the plain plaintiff-respondent from dispossess lot ssessing the plaintiff from the plot in questi uestion. The plaintiff was allotted plot No int, t No.10-B situated at Focal Point, Moga m ga measuring 4166.66 sq. yards the rds on 3.2.1978. However, the allotmen tment of plot allotted to the on the plaintiff was cancelled on 29.09.19 9.1978. The plaintiff earlier filed a ion ed a suit for permanent injunction for restra restraining the defendant from dispo the dispossessing the plaintiff from the said plot plot and that the cancellation of t gal of the allotment of plot is illegal and void void. In the said suit the court ha ion rt has not expressed any opinion upon the n the order of cancellation but pass tiff passed a decree that the plaintiff would no ld not be dispossessed from the suit rse suit property except in due course w. of law. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a to led another suit for declaration to the effec effect that he is a lessee in possess at ssession of the said plot and that the said said plot cannot be put to auction. I urt ion. In the said case, the trial court has pass passed an order of status quo. The der The appeal against the said order was dism dismissed as beyond the period of li ion of limitation. The present revision is agains gainst the order thus passed in secon econd suit. It is pointed out that the S.D.O. (C der .O. (C), Moga has passed an order of ejectm jectment against the plaintiff acting jab ting as Collector under the Punjab SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) Public P lic Premises and Land (Eviction an Page 11 of 15 15 (cid:1) 73 n and Rent Recovery), Act, 1973 (hereina reinafter referred as the Act) and the ht d therefore, the plaintiff is sought to be eje e ejected in due process of law. It the . It is further submitted that the order of er of cancellation of allotment has the has not been challenged by the plaintiff ntiff and thus the order of status qu rial us quo passed by the learned trial court is rt is wholly illegal and without jurisd the jurisdiction and in fact against the decree p ree passed in favour of the plaintiff o tiff on 17.3.1998. The plaintiff has been granted de ion d decree for permanent injunction on the b he basis of his possession on 17.3.19 y a .3.1998. Therefore, subsequently a suit for d for declaration that he is lessee in p le. in possession is not maintainable. The plai plaintiff has no legal right to reta lot retain the possession of the plot which w ch was cancelled long time back. The ed . The plaintiff can be dispossessed in accor ccordance with eviction order passe the passed by the Collector under the Act. Consequently, the revision is ac ted is accepted and the order dated 10.08.19 8.1999 passed by the learned trial c me trial court is set aside as the same is paten atently illegally causing manifest nt ifest injustice to the defendant petitione itioner.” 17. In pursuance to order of t ed of this Court, plaintiff was issued another notice otice (Ex.P10) vide which he was d - as directed to deposit Rs.70,883/- more being en g enhancement of compensation. H to on. However, the plaintiff failed to deposit the s e said amount also. Ultimately, n ere ly, notices (Ex.D2 to Ex.D5) were issued to the the plaintiff, which were also not c . ot complied with by the plaintiff. From the abov above facts, it is crystal clear that Ba aid Balance amount was never paid by the plainti intiff since 1978 despite grant of as of innumerable opportunities as enumerated a ed above. The allotment of the ide the plaintiff was cancelled vide registered lett letter dated 29.09.1978 (Ex.D6); ed ; and upheld vide order dated SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 24.02.1995 (E 5 (Ex.D15) passed by the SDM M Page 12 of 15 15 (cid:1) ter M Moga. Needless to say, after cancellation o n of allotment of plot, plaintiff is of is an unauthorised occupant of the plot in disp dispute. 18. The only argument made in ade by the plaintiff is that in pursuance to to advertisement dated 13.0 ain 13.09.1997 vide which certain relaxations we s were given to defaulters, he had m ns ad made repeated representations to the defenda endant to intimate to him the due a ear ue amount to enable him to clear the dues. First Firstly, plaintiff was very well awar rds ware of the amount due towards him. As such, ch, if he had wanted to take benef ed enefit of the advertisement dated 13.09.1997, as 7, as per which he was required to or d to deposit the entire dues on or before 30.09.1 .09.1997, there was nothing that sto ad t stood in his way. Yet plaintiff had again failed t ed to deposit the amount with on. ith the respondent-Corporation. Clearly, theref erefore, plaintiff has continued to b he to be in illegal occupation of the suit plot. 19. Moreover, except for the 97 the telegram dated 16.09.1997 (Ex.P1), plai plaintiff has been unable er to point out any other t document/com /communication made by the - he plaintiff to the defendant- Corporation. . On the contrary, the record nd ord is replete with notices and opportunities ties granted to the plaintiff by the ear he defendant-Corporation to clear the dues and m nd make payment of the plot in qu lly n question. It has been specifically deposed by th y the defendant witnesses that de of t despite numerous extensions of time given to to the plaintiff, he continued to de ide o default in payment of dues. Vide SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) letter dated 0 ed 05.08.1978 (Ex.D3) Plaintiff ha - f had requested the defendant- Corporation n that some time be given to him fo ue. im for depositing the amount due. Page 13 of 15 15 (cid:1) In response to e to which, the defendant had sent nd sent a registered letter (Ex.D4) and telegram (Ex.D (Ex.D5) requesting the plaintiff to de tiff to deposit Rs.10,000/- but plaintiff had failed to d to do so. Even in the allotment lette en letter, the plaintiff had been given 30 days’ time time to deposit 20% of the prem , remium amount i.e. Rs.16,667/-, however, the p the plaintiff had deposited only Rs.5 Rs.5,667/-. 20. The relevant findings of ate of the learned lower Appellate Court are con contained in Paras 15 to 18 in ed in judgment and decree dated 21.04.2010, w , which are as follows:- “15. In this case the following fact (a) Industrial plot No. 10-B was allotment order Ex.P4 dated 19. 4166.66 square yards for a sum of (b) Plaintiff was directed to depo plot within 30 days. (c) Plaintiff deposited only Rs. 56 20% premium price. (d) Plaintiff was issued another was directed to deposit Rs. 70,88 of compensation by Hon'ble High (e) Plaintiff failed to deposit this a (f) Ultimately various notices were 20% amount of premium price. Th (g) When plaintiff failed to depo his allotment was cancelled on 29 Ex.D6. (h) Plaintiff moved for arbitratio passed against him by Joint Arbitrator vide Award dated 5.1 allotment was upheld by the Arbit facts are not in dispute- was allotted to the plaintiff vide ide of d 19.5.1978 having total area of m ofRs.83,335/-; the posit 20% premium price of the sit s. 5667/- but he failed to deposit he ther notice Ex.P10 vide which he nt 0,883/- more being enhancement igh Court; his amount also; the were issued to him for deposit the e. The notices are D2 to Ex.D5. deposit 20% of the premises price ice ter on 29.9.1978 vide registered letter ration and arbitration award was as um Industries -cum Joint Secretary of d 5.11.1981/ and cancellation of Arbitrator. SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) (i) The defendant Corporation mo 5 and 7 of the Act which was de vide order dated 24.2.1995 (Ex.D1 (j) Plaintiff filed the suit for inj Defendant filed civil Miscellaneou which was decided by learned 27.11.2002. (k) Defendant Corporation filed C which was accepted with aforesai (l) In Civil Suit No. 432 of 1996 p Industries Corporation was restra and was further directed to dem disputed plot. 16. The instant suit has been advertisement issue by defendan papers such as The Tribune dated dated 13.9.1997. However, a sp these advertisements that the co those cancelled/ resumed allo having acquired possession of through due process of law. Plain regard to the amount due towar benefit of that advertisement it entire dues on or before 30.9.199 amount with the defendant corpo already been canceled. Therefore of advertisement Ex. P17. 17. Apart from it, the allotment been canceled vide Ex.D6 and it depositing the amount. Besides already been issued against him 18. Apart from it, the instant s earlier sought the remedy of injun of allotment and even much a 24.2.1995 by the Collector. Hon'b No. 1154 of 2003 has observ maintainable.” Page 14 of 15 15 (cid:1) ns n moved a petition under Sections ga s decided by the Collector, Moga x.D15). r injunction which was decreed. ed. neous Appeal No.24 of 11.12.1999 99 on rned District Judge Faridkot on 3 led Civil Revision No. 1154 of 2003 resaid observation. 96 plaintiff M/s MahaLaxmi Agro ro ion strained from raising construction on demolish the structure raised on of een filed solely on the basis of ndant corporation in various news ws ari ated 13.9.1997 and Punjab Kesari a specific note is given beneath th in e concession are not applicable in ion allotments, where corporation n of the plot/building thereon on ith Plaintiff was very well aware with owards him. If he wanted to take ke the nt it was his duty to deposit the the .1997 but he failed to deposit the orporation, even his allotment has as fit efore, he can not take the benefit ment of the plaintiff has already dy by nd it can not resumed merely by as ides this, the eviction order has im on 24.2.1995. ant suit is not maintainable. He He injunction much after cancellation ion ted ch after passed of order dated on'ble High Court in Civil Revision on ot served that instant suit is not SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1) 21. From the above facts, it Page 15 of 15 15 (cid:1) as , it is clear that the plaintiff has totally failed led to establish his bona fide in he in making the payment to the respondent-Co Corporation and has continued to he d to be in illegal occupation of the plot since 29.0 29.09.1978. As such, no ground wh nt whatsoever is made out to grant the prayer of t of the plaintiff that he may be perm er permitted to make payment as per the advertisem tisement dated 13.9.1997. On the be the contrary, payment has to be taken from th m the plaintiff as per the presen ith sent prevailing rates along with interest. 22. 23. 24.04.2025 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 2025.04.29 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (cid:1)