Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prem Nath Gupta And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 3 April, 2019
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
RSA No.4906 of 2017 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.4906 of 2017 (O&M)
Date of Decision.03.04.2019
Prem Nath Gupta and another ...Appellants
Vs
State of Haryana and others ..Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present:Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate
for the appellants.
-.-
AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL)
The present regular second appeal is directed against the concurrent finding of fact whereby the suit of the appellants-plaintiffs for declaration claiming ownership in possession of disputed agricultural well comprised in Khewat No.1166 Khatoni No.1605 Khasra No.2532 measuring 0 kanal 4 marla gair mumkin chah situated at Village Narnaul and correction of the revenue entries with further relief of permanent injunction has been dismissed by the trial Court and affirmed in appeal.
The plaintiffs sought the aforementioned relief on the premise that vide Ex.P5, predecessor in interest of plaintiffs was allotted land under the Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1954 and the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. There was a common chah (well), which was being used for the purpose of irrigation. The Department in the year 1967 issued instructions to the effect that the well could be allotted to the allottees of land as common chah.
1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 14-04-2019 09:38:07 ::: RSA No.4906 of 2017 (O&M) -2- ` Defendants opposed the suit by raising objection qua maintainability, non-joinder of necessary party etc. On merits, it was stated that the aforementioned khasra number was recorded in the ownership of 'mahkma custodian' and in the column of possession as 'maqbooza custodian', thus, there was no right, title or interest of plaintiffs. Instructions related to decision dated 23.5.1970. it was alleged that the suit land was auctioned in 2004 and allotted to defendant No.4 being the highest bidder.
Since the parties were at variance, the trial Court framed as many as eight issues including the issue of relief.
In support of pleadings, plaintiffs brought on record Ex.P1 to P36 including naksha hakuk chah to establish that well comprised in khasra No.2532 was adjoining the land of the plaintiffs. Defendants brought on record Ex.D1 to D9, which also contained order cancelling the auction in favour of defendant No.4 as it was not approved by Tehsildar.
Mr. Ajay Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that finding of fact and law arrived at by the Courts below relegating the plaintiffs to avail remedy under the Haryana Evacuee Properties (Amendment and Disposal) Rules, 2011 empowered the Tehsildar (Sales) to consider aforementioned application. The aforesaid Rules will not be applicable as the matter with regard to implementation of instructions is also pending adjudication in this Court. Even the instructions have not been followed in letter and spirit.
I am afraid aforementioned argument is not sustainable, 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 14-04-2019 09:38:07 ::: RSA No.4906 of 2017 (O&M) -3- for, the present suit was filed in 2007 whereas the Act on the basis of which allotment was made and the instructions issued was of 2008. In such circumstances, plaintiffs at the relevant point of time had a remedy as per existing Rules.
In view of such circumstances, I do not find any illegality and perversity in the concurrent finding of fact rendered by the Courts below, much less, no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. No ground for interference is made out. Resultantly, the second appeal is dismissed.
(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE April 03, 2019 Pankaj* Whether Reasoned/Speaking Yes Whether Reportable No 3 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 14-04-2019 09:38:07 :::