Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab Land Development & Reclamation vs Ashok Kumar Gupta And Others on 22 February, 2011
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
R. S. A. No. 1581 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : R. S. A. No. 1581 of 2010
Date of Decision : February 22, 2011
Punjab Land Development & Reclamation
Corporation, Chandigarh .... Appellant
Vs.
Ashok Kumar Gupta and others .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate
for respondent no.1.
* * *
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
Defendant no.2 - Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation, Chandigarh (in short - the Corporation), through its Managing Director, has filed the instant second appeal having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below.
Respondent no.1 - plaintiff Ashok Kumar Gupta filed suit against State of Punjab, the Corporation through its Chairman/Managing Director, the Corporation's Branch Office through its duly constituted R. S. A. No. 1581 of 2010 2 attorney and Bir Partap Singh, for possession of the suit land measuring 27 kanals 11½ marlas alleging that plaintiff purchased the suit land from defendant no.4 Bir Partap Singh vide sale deed dated 07.11.2000 and became its owner in possession. However, in plaintiff's absence, defendants no.2 and 3 i.e. the Corporation took illegal possession of the suit land. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought possession of the suit land along with use and occupation charges.
Only the Corporation i.e. defendants no.2 and 3 contested the suit. Plaint allegations were broadly denied. Sale deed dated 07.11.2000 set up by the plaintiff was pleaded to be null and void. It was alleged that defendant no.4 was not owner of the suit land nor plaintiff is owner of the suit land. It was pleaded that Corporation is owner in possession of the suit land. The Corporation had earlier given it on lease to Central State Seed Farm (in short - Seed Farm) and on expiry of the lease period, the possession reverted to the Corporation. Various other pleas were also raised.
Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana, vide judgment and decree dated 06.09.2007, decreed the plaintiff's suit for possession of the suit land. First appeal preferred by defendant no.2 has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 23.11.2009. Feeling aggrieved, defendant no.2 has filed the instant second appeal.
R. S. A. No. 1581 of 2010 3
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Pursuant to order of the preceding date, records of the courts below have also been received and perused.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that respondent no.1 - plaintiff is not proved to be owner of the suit land. The contention cannot be accepted. There is concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below that respondent no.1 - plaintiff is proved to be owner of the suit land. The said finding is based on proper analysis of the evidence led by the parties. The said finding is supported by detailed reasons recorded by the courts below. On the contrary, defendants no.2 and 3 miserably failed to prove their case. They failed to prove that they are owners of the suit land. They also failed to prove leasing out of the suit land by them to Seed Farm as no documentary evidence in this regard was produced. Even it was not pleaded as to when the land had been leased out by defendants no.2 and 3 to the Seed Farm. Concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below in favour of the plaintiff does not warrant interference in second appeal as it is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. Statutory Corporation is claiming ownership of the land without any documentary evidence to support its claim of ownership. Obviously, the said claim is completely unsustainable.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for R. S. A. No. 1581 of 2010 4 determination in the instant second appeal.
Appellant-Corporation has already handed over possession of the suit land to respondent no.1-plaintiff. Affidavit of plaintiff, filed today in Court by his counsel, is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Copy supplied to the opposite counsel. It has inter alia been affirmed in the said affidavit that deponent has no objection if the appellant-Corporation is permitted to cut the trees, which are standing on the suit land.
In view of the aforesaid, the appellant-Corporation is given liberty to cut and remove the trees standing on the suit land on or before 15.06.2011. Subject to the said liberty, the instant appeal is dismissed.
February 22, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE