Punjab-Haryana High Court
Haryana Urban Development Authority vs Dharam Pal And Others on 27 April, 2010
Author: Ajay Tewari
Bench: Ajay Tewari
RSA No.842 of 2010 (O & M) ::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.842 of 2010 (O & M)
Date of decision: 27.04.2010
Haryana Urban Development Authority, (HUDA) through Estate Officer
(HUDA), Faridabad and another.
.. Appellants
Versus
Dharam Pal and others.
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
Present:- Mr.Rajesh Sehgal, Advocate
for Mr.Manish Bansal, Advocate
for the appellants.
AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL)
. . .
This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents for permanent injunction restraining the appellants from interfering in their possession over the property in dispute. Ground taken was that the appellants, though they acquired the neighbouring land have never acquired the land in dispute. The appellants, on the other hand, took the plea that the land in dispute fell in the land which was acquired. The dispute, thus, was only regarding the demarcation of the land in dispute so as to examine whether it fell within the land acquired by the appellants or not. The Courts below relied upon the report of the Local Commissioner (Halqa Patwari, who had been appointed under the order passed by the Revenue Authority) and at the time of whose inspection, officials of the appellants were also present. The Courts below finding this report to be credible came to the conclusion that the land in dispute did not fall within that land, which had been acquired by the appellants. Before the learned RSA No.842 of 2010 (O & M) ::2::
Lower Appellate Court, an application was filed by the appellants to appoint another Local Commissioner. This application was rejected by the learned Lower Appellate Court on the ground that since there was already a report of the Local Commissioner and since no fault could be found therewith, there was no justification for appointing of a Local Commissioner at the appellate stage. Consequently, relying upon the report already given the the learned Lower Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants.
The following questions have been proposed:-
(i) Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit in view of Section 50 (2) of the HUDA Act ?
(ii) Whether the plaintiffs/respondents have no locus standii to file the present suit ?
(iii) Whether the judgments of learned courts below are sustainable being arrived at after non-application of judicial mind and that they are merely based on conjectures and surmises ?
(iv) Whether the land in dispute forms part and parcel of Khasra No.63/21 which is in the ownership of appellants/defendants and had been acquired by the State for development of Sector 46, Faridabad ?
In my opinion, if questions No.(iv) is decided against the appellants, then question No.(i) would have also to be decided against the appellants. As regards questions No.(iv) as mentioned-above, both the Courts have come to a concurrent finding of fact that the land in dispute does not form part and parcel of Khasra No.63/21 which had been acquired by the appellants. Learned counsel has taken me through the findings of the learned Lower Appellate Court and has not been able to persuade me RSA No.842 of 2010 (O & M) ::3::
that the said findings are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC.
Since question No.(iv) is held against the appellants, it has to be held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction despite the limiting Clause in Section 50 (2) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1976. In view of the findings of question No.(i) and (iv), question No.(ii) and (iii) recede in the background.
Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Since the main appeal has been decided, the Civil Miscellaneous Application, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE April 27, 2010 sukhpreet