The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-73-2015 (O&M) Mahabir Singh and Others Kartar Singh and Others Vs. . . . . Appellants . . . . Respondents Reserved on: 16.01.2025 Pronounced on: 22.01.2025 **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Unsuccessful defendants have approached this Court by way of the present Regular Second Appeal, inasmuch as suit filed by the plain*ffs Kar- tar Singh etc. (contes(cid:8)ng respondents herein) seeking decree of permanent in- junc*on with alterna*ve prayer for possession of the suit land, was decreed by
Facts
the trial court on 17.02.2011; and the appeal filed by the defendants-appellants was dismissed by the appellate Court on 20.08.2014. 2. Trial Court record was called. The same has been perused. In order to avoid confusion, par*es shall be referred as per their status before learned trial Court. 3.1 One Mai Ram was owner in possession of agricultural land mea- suring 426 kanal 10 marla situated within the revenue estate of village Chandi Tehsil Meham District Rohtak. Out of this, 78 kanal 5 marla of land in the hands of his son Ram Du7 was declared surplus on 01.01.1960 under the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenure Act, 1953. However, land remained unu*lized by the State. Therea=er, Ram Du7 son of Mai Ram suffered Civil Court decree dated 30.03.1970 qua 3/4th share in the said land in favour of his wife and sons NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.01.22 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-73-2015 (O&M) namely Rukmani, Balkishan and Hazari Lal in equal share and based thereon, muta*on was sanc*oned on 23.05.1971. 3.2 In the mean*me, State of Haryana enacted ‘The Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972’. A=er coming into force of the said Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, Ram Du7 filed a fresh declara*on on 29.07.1976 before the prescribed authority and the said authority on 19.12.1977 declared that there was no surplus land. However, in the mean*me, the prescribed authority by relying upon the original order, allo7ed 78 kanal 5 marla of land to Meda son of Shiv Charan on 3.6.1978. Muta*on No.5429 dated 22.06.1979 (Ex.P11) was sanc*oned in the favour of Haryana Government in respect of 78 kanal 5 marla of land based by virtue of no*fica*on No.18 under the Land Holdings Act from earlier recorded owners Ram Du7, Rukmani, Balkrishan and Hazari. 3.3 Ram Du7 etc. moved applica*on before the prescribed authority to exempt their surplus area and to declare it as their permissible area. The ap- plica*on was dismissed by the prescribed authority on 07.07.1994 but the ap- peal filed by them was accepted by the Collector on 27.03.1995 and that order was confirmed in revision by the Commissioner on 31.12.1997. Against the or- ders of Collector and Commissioner, allo7ee Meda Ram filed further revision before the Financial Commissioner, which was accepted on 09.03.1999. The or- der of Financial Commissioner dated 09.03.1999 was challenged by the defen- dants/Ram Du7 etc. before Hon’ble High Court vide CWP-6748-1999. However, said writ pe**on was dismissed on 10.02.2001 (Ex.P10). Even the SLP filed by land owners Ram Du7 etc. was dismissed as withdrawn by Hon’ble Supreme Court. On the basis of allotment in favour of Meda, muta*on N: 6821K (Ex.P1) was sanc*oned on 13.12.2001 a=er the decision of the Financial Commissioner and that of Hon’ble High Court vide Ex.P10; and the possession was delivered to Meda vide Rapat No.312 dated 15.06.1994 (Ex.P2). 3.4 In the mean*me, the land owners Ram Du7 etc. had sold the suit land measuring 26 kanal 12 marla (forming part of 78 Kanal 5 Marla allo7ed to NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.01.22 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 2 of 6 RSA-73-2015 (O&M) Meda Ram) along with other land in favour of defendants by virtue of a sale deed dated 29.01.1998 (Ex.D1). A=er the decision (Ex.P10) of Hon’ble High Court, said purchasers i.e. defendants filed a fresh applica*on before the pre- scribed authority for exemp*ng their land from the surplus pool. Said applica- *on was dismissed by the prescribed authority on 15.09.2002 and the appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 13.08.2005 (Ex.P3). 3.5 In the mean*me, Meda - the allo7ee of the land, sold suit land to the extent of 26 kanal 12 marla in favour of plain*ffs by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 01.07.2005 Ex.P5 for considera*on of ₹18 lakhs. 3.6 Based upon the aforesaid averments, plain*ffs, who are pur- chasers of suit land from Meda, filed the present suit seeking decree of perma- nent injunc*on alleging interference in their possession by the defendants and also prayed for gran*ng decree of possession, in case defendants are found to have taken the possession of the suit land. 4. Defendants resisted the suit. They denied the possession of the plain*ffs over the suit land. They further claimed to be in cul*va*ng possession of the suit land and having installed tube wells therein etc. and that suit land was not allo7ed to Meda and that the alleged allotment had been cancelled. It was further contended that defendants (appellants herein) are the bona fide purchasers of the suit land for value. 5. Necessary issues were framed by the trial Court. Evidence pro- duced by both the par*es was taken on record. Learned trial Court decreed the suit by holding the plain*ffs to be owner of the suit land. However, it was found that they were not in possession and as such, decree for possession of the suit land was passed in favour of the plain*ffs. The appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed by the First Appellate Court as has already been no*ced. 6.
Legal Reasoning
Once this Court in the Civil Writ Pe**on has already held the ap- pellants to be not the bona fide purchasers of the suit land, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellants to raise the same plea and to contend that they are bona fide purchasers of the suit land. 12. It has been rightly observed by both the Courts below that there was no necessity for the plain*ffs to challenge the sale deed in favour of the de- fendants, as it stood impliedly set aside by order of this Court in Civil Writ Pe*- *on vide judgment Ex.P-10. 13. The only surviving conten*on raised by learned counsel for the ap- pellants is that suit was filed simplicitor for permanent injunc*on and as plain- *ffs were not in possession, therefore, the decree for permanent injunc*on could not have been granted. The conten*on has no merit. Plain*ffs- contes*ng respondents have been found to be *tle holder of the suit land, having pur- chased the same from the allo7ee Meda. Meda was delivered possession of the suit land as per Rapat No.312 dated 15.06.1994 (Ex.P4). Simply on the basis of spot inspec*on, it cannot be stated defendants are in possession of suit land. 14. It will not be out of place to men*on that predecessor of the plain- *ffs i.e. Meda had filed a complaint under the provisions of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Preven*on of Atroci*es) Act against the vendors of the defendants in the Court of learned Special Court, Rohtak. That complaint was decided on 05.03.1994, copy of order of which is Ex.P7. It will be relevant to men*on the contents of the said order, which are as under:- “The par*es have compromised through the medium of Lok Adalat. Statement of the par*es recorded overleaf. As per terms of the compromise, it is held that the complainant is in possession and he is con*nuing to be in possession of the disputed land. Any ar*cles belonging to the accused lying in that land would be removed by the accused within one week from today. The accused have under- taken not to interfere in the possession of the complainant over this land in fu- ture in any manner. The pe**oner has apprehended fear and has prayed for Page 5 of 6 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.01.22 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-73-2015 (O&M) police help. A le7er be wri7en to the Superintendent of Police for the protec- *on of the possession of the complainant over the land in dispute.” 15. It is evident from the aforesaid order that Meda (the complainant of that case) was found to be in possession of the suit land and the vendors of the defendants had undertaken to remove their ar*cles from the suit land. Those vendors had undertaken not to interfere in the possession of the com- plainant i.e. Meda over the land in future in any manner. It is, thus, clear from the aforesaid order that vendors of the defendants-appellants had admi7ed the possession of Meda i.e. vendor of the plain*ffs over the suit land. In these cir- cumstances, it cannot be claimed by the defendants-appellants that they are in possession of the suit land. 16. As it appears that on the basis of spot inspec*on that decree for possession has been passed. The plain*ffs had specifically asked for alterna*ve relief of possession over the suit land, as they are the *tle holders. The Courts below have not commi7ed any error in gran*ng the said relief of decree of pos- session, as the plain*ffs are *tle holders of the suit land. 17. On account of the en*re discussion as above, this Court does not find any ground whatsoever to interfere in the well-reasoned judgments of the Courts below giving a concurrent finding to the effect that plain*ffs being the *- tle holders are en*tled to possession over the suit land. Holding the present ap- peal to be devoid of any merit, the same is hereby dismissed. 22.01.2025 Nee(cid:8)ka Tuteja Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? Yes/No Yes/No (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.01.22 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 6 of 6
Arguments
Assailing the aforesaid concurrent findings, it is contended by ld. counsel for the appellants-defendants that both the Courts have failed to appre- Page 3 of 6 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.01.22 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-73-2015 (O&M) ciate the evidence in right perspec*ve, as they ignored the fact that appellants are bona fide purchasers with considera*on in good faith from the original own- ers. It is further contended that sale deed dated 29.01.1998 in favour of the de- fendants was never challenged by the plain*ffs. It is also contended that defen- dants are in possession of the suit land, as has been found on the spot based on the inspec*on and that despite the fact the Courts found plain*ffs to be not in possession, s*ll the suit simplicitor for permanent injunc*on has been wrongly decreed. It is argued that the suit for simplicitor permanent injunc*on was not maintainable. 7. The counsel for the respondents-plain*ffs, on the other hand, have defended the impugned judgments of the Courts below. 8. I have considered submissions of both the sides and have ap- praised the record carefully. 9. Defendants-appellants had purchased the suit land from land owners namely Rukmani, Bal Kishan, Hazari and Ram Du7 by virtue of a sale deed dated 29.01.1998 Ex.D1. Prior to the sale, their vendors i.e. Rukmani etc. had filed Civil Writ Pe**on No.6748 of 1999, challenging the declara*on of their land as surplus and also challenging the orders passed by the Financial Commis- sioner. That writ pe**on was dismissed vide judgment dated 23.10.2001 (Ex.P10). 10. It is very important to no*ce that in the above Civil Writ Pe**on, the present defendants-appellants were also impleaded as defendant Nos.15 to 17 and they had specifically raised the plea of being bona fide purchasers of the suit land. However, said plea was negated by this Court by observing that they are not en*tled to any relief, as they had purchased the land during the pen- dency of the present li*ga*on and otherwise also, they had never challenged the orders passed by the prescribed authority and the respondent No.1 i.e. State of Haryana through Financial Commissioner of the Government of Haryana. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.01.22 18:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 4 of 6 RSA-73-2015 (O&M) 11.