Punjab-Haryana High Court
Thakur Singh vs State Of Punjab on 3 August, 2010
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
C.R. No.4824 of 2010(O & M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No.4824 of 2010(O & M)
Date of Decision: 03.08.2010
Thakur Singh .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ......Respondent
Coram:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL.
Present: Mr.Suresh Goel, Advocate for the petitioner.
L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL)
CM No.19223-CII of 2010 Allowed as prayed for.
Main Case.
Plaintiff-Thakur Singh has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India having remained unsuccessful in securing temporary injunction in both the Courts below.
Plaintiff filed suit for declaration and also claimed temporary injunction during pendency of the suit. Plaintiff's case is that he is in possession of the suit land since long and has never paid any lease money etc. to respondent-defendant-State of Punjab which is owner to the extent of half share in the suit land. Plaintiff was recorded to be in occupation of the suit land in jamabandis for the years 1990-91, 1995-96 and 2000-01, but the defendant illegally got the plaintiff's name removed in jamabandi for the year 2005-06. C.R. No.4824 of 2010(O & M) -2- The said entry has been challenged by the plaintiff and correction thereof is sought. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff claimed temporary injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land illegally and forcibly till final decision of the suit.
The defendant denied the allegations of the plaintiff and inter alia pleaded that the plaintiff had taken the suit land on Chakota for one year i.e 1989-90 and again for one year i.e 1996-97, but the plaintiff's name inadvertently continued in jamabandis and the same was corrected in jamabandi for the year 2005-06. It was denied that plaintiff is in possession of the suit land.
Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barnala vide order dated 18.04.2009 Annexure P-7 dismissed the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction. Appeal preferred by plaintiff against the said order has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Barnala vide judgment dated 03.05.2010 Annexure P-8. Both the aforesaid orders are under challenge in the instant revision petition filed by the plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
Learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically contended that the plaintiff is recorded to be in possession of the suit land in jamabandis for the years 1990-91, 1995-96 and 2000-01 and, therefore, the plaintiff cannot be dispossessed from the suit land forcibly and illegally even if his possession be unauthorized thereon. It was contended that the plaintiff was never ejected or dispossessed C.R. No.4824 of 2010(O & M) -3- from the suit land by the defendant-respondent. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Ram Mahale (dead) by his legal representatives versus Mrs. Sbhobha Ram Venkat Rao, 1990(1) RCR (Rent) 525.
I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but find no force therein. Prima facie from the documents produced on record by defendant-respondent, the Courts below have found that plaintiff had taken the suit land on Chakota for the year 1989-90 and again for the year 1996-97. It is thus apparent that entry in jamabandi for the year 1990-91 was recorded in favour of the plaintiff because he had taken the suit land on Chakota for one year i.e 1989-
90. If the plaintiff had continued in possession of the suit land even thereafter, he would not have again taken the suit land on Chakota for one year in 1996-97 from the defendant-respondent. Basis of entry in jamabandi for the year 1990-91 in favour of the plaintiff, which was repeated in two subsequent jamabandis, is not far to seek because the plaintiff had taken the suit land on Chakota for one year i.e 1989-90. The fact that the plaintiff again took the suit land on Chakota from the defendant in 1996-97 would depict that the plaintiff did not continue in possession of the suit land during the intervening periods. The plaintiff cannot be said to be in established possession of the suit land. The land is leased out yearly by the respondent- State. Courts below have appreciated the case in right perspective. There is no illegality in the impugned order of the Courts below so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is C.R. No.4824 of 2010(O & M) -4- accordingly dismissed in limine.
However, nothing observed hereinbefore shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the suit.
( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 03.08.2010.
A. Kaundal