Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sant Ram And Others vs State Of Haryana And Another on 24 January, 2011
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
R.S.A.No. 381 of 2011 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
R.S.A.No. 381 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: 24.1.2011
Sant Ram and others
......Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and another
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Naresh Kaushik, Advocate,
for the appellants.
****
SABINA, J.
Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration and injunction. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that they were in possession of the land bearing khasra No. 139/ 3 situated within the revenue limits of Ballabhgarh as co-sharers. Plaintiffs had constructed shops over the property in dispute in the year 1995. The defendants wanted to develop a Dushera ground in khasra No.139/3 and acquired the suit land. The plaintiffs and other oustees were allotted land bearing khasra No.184. The plaintiffs had raised construction R.S.A.No. 381 of 2011 (O&M) 2 on the land allotted to them. The plaintiffs had also got an electricity connection and telephone connection in the shops constructed by them. The Chief Minister, Haryana announced in a meeting on 20.2.1995 that the plaintiffs and other oustees would be allotted some alternate sites on account of acquisition of their land bearing khasra No.139/3. The defendants, however, started threatening the plaintiffs to take possession of the suit land. The defendants had taken a policy decision to charge sale price of the land in dispute @ ` 15,000/- per square yards from the oustees who were allotted the land in khasra No.184.
Defendant No.1, in its written statement, alleged that the plaintiffs and other persons, who owned land in Dushera ground, had agreed to donate their land to the State and to accept the land situated at old Capital Bus Stand Ballabhgarh in the ratio of 1:10. It was also agreed that the parties would deposit ` 15,000/- per square yard, if the land allotted to them in khasra No.184 came beyond their entitlement. The said amount was increased to ` 50,000/- per square yard in view of prevailing market price. The plaintiff and other oustees were offered to deposit the aforesaid amount to get their possession regularised but they had failed to do so.
Defendant No.2, in its written statement, denied that the plaintiffs were owners of the land bearing khasra No.139/3. It was also denied that the possession of the plaintiffs over the shops in R.S.A.No. 381 of 2011 (O&M) 3 dispute was as oustees. It was admitted that the land bearing khasra No.139/3 had been developed as Dushehra ground. The handing over of possession of any piece of land out of khasra No.184 to the plaintiffs was denied. It was averred that the khasra No.184 was Nazool land.
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:-
1. Whether the allotment letter in respect of land in question @ ` 15,000/- per square yard is illegal, null and void? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of mandatory injunction and permanent injunction as prayed for OPP
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD
4.Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD
5. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD
6. Whether the suit is not within limitation ? OPD
7. Relief.
The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 14.11.2009 partly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. The decree for permanent injunction was passed in favour of the plaintiffs and the defendants were restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the shops in dispute except in due course of law. The R.S.A.No. 381 of 2011 (O&M) 4 plaintiffs were left at liberty to challenge the policy decision taken by the State for enhancing the price to ` 50,000/- per square yard. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiffs as well as the defendants preferred separate appeals. Vide judgment and decree dated 20.9.2010, the District Judge, Faridabad partly accepted the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants as infructuous. The defendant-State was directed to fix the rate after re-consideration of some intelligible criteria such as Collector's rate within three months but the same would not be more than ` 50,000/- per square yard already decided by the State Government. Payment would be met by the plaintiffs within one month thereafter and consequently, the possession of the plaintiffs would be regularised.
After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal.
Learned District Judge has held that the decision of the defendants to charge ` 50,000/- per square yard for the land in possession of the plaintiffs bearing khasra No.184 was not correct. The criteria for fixing the price @ ` 50,000/- per square yard was not based on any intelligible basis. Hence, it was ordered that the State should re-fix the sale price on some intelligible basis relatable to Collector's rate prevailing in the year 1995 when the land was given and taken. The said decision does not call for any interference at the R.S.A.No. 381 of 2011 (O&M) 5 instance of the plaintiffs. The State would now re-fix the sale price after taking consideration the Collector's rate etc. prevailing in the year 1995. Rather the relief claimed by the plaintiffs has duly been allowed to them. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE January 24, 2011 anita