Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kirpal Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 14 October, 2014
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
PREM SINGH
CWP No. 10198 of 2008 1
2014.10.30 14:13
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 10198 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of decision: October 14, 2014.
Kirpal Singh and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes
Present: Mr. JS Gill, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, Additional Advocate General,
Punjab, for respondents No. 1 and 2.
Mr. Sumit Mahajan, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Amit Kohar, Advocate,
for respondent No.3.
K. KANNAN, J. (Oral)
1. The petition is filed at the instance of the person who claims that the 3rd respondent, who is characterized as a property dealer, has been attempting to get possession of the prime land worth `300 crores situated in the heart of the Ludhiana City with the active connivance of the State. The petitioners would declare that there is an Industrial Training Institute (ITI) run by the Government at the property and the 1st petitioner has been the chairman of the Institute of the Managing Committee (IMC) constituted by CWP No. 10198 of 2008 2 the Directorate of the Technical Education and Industrial Training that oversees the technical institutes run in the Punjab. At the time of filing of the petition, the 1st petitioner has had an apprehension that he was likely to be replaced from the Committee with a new set up of people owing allegiance to the 3rd respondent family and the petitioner would seek, therefore, relief that he shall not be dispossessed from his position. He wants a CBI inquiry to be conducted for the land dealing of the 3rd respondent and the transactions of forged and fictitious documents that 3rd respondent was attempting to create by taking power of attorney from the original owner of the property.
2. The State would file a reply denying that there is any overture on its part to remove the petitioner from the Committee and has not joined issues on the ownership claims attributed to it by the petitioner. The 3rd respondent has entered the principal contest denying the claim made by the petitioners that the property belonged to Government and that he is usurper of the property attempting transactions to favour himself. The contention is that this property where Government was running a Girls' Technical School was an evacuee land and it was purchased in an auction held on 22.9.1957. The 3rd respondent would rely on "saleable acquired evacuee property" as entered in the performa drawn up on 3.6.1957 that was antecedent to the actual sale to gather the details of property that had been notified for sale. The property has been described as per the Block number in the municipality at the relevant time as B-XIII/282 at Ludhiana Jagraon Road, describing the property to be of the evacuee owner, Abdul Hafee. The CWP No. 10198 of 2008 3 property was sold for `96,100/- on 22.9.1957 and after the purchase the property had been held by the Government on lease from the auction purchaser at the monthly rent of `125/- and was continued to be paid upto the date of the petition. The respondents would further contend that there had been some attempts of some persons in securing documents from the legal heirs of Dewan Chand and there had been a complaint by his daughter Urmila Sachdeva to the police and later she had herself filed a suit in 110/1994 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, seeking for declaration of her 1/3rd interest in the property, described specific khasra No. 497/499 of an extent of 4 bigha 4 biswas and 1 biswasi equivalent to 12100 square yards. The other co-owners were the another daughter of Dewan Chand and the son having pre-deceased his widow and daughter were also parties in the said suit. Several persons who had claimed as purchasers through some persons claiming to be power of attorney-agents of the owner were also parties in the suit. The suit ended in a compromise admitting to the ownership of Dewan Chand's legal heirs and also conceding that all the sale deeds had been got cancelled by registered instruments and the title of the plaintiff and defendants 14 to 16 in that suit was admitted by all concerned.
3. The 3rd respondent would refer to the fact that Urmila Sachdeva had herself directly entered in the transaction of sale in favour of the 3rd respondent and other legal heirs had also executed the sale deeds, copies of all of which have been filed as Annexure R3/7. The contention is that the entire property is the property purchased directly from Urmila Sachdeva and CWP No. 10198 of 2008 4 other sisters and in respect of the transaction for the widow and daughter of pre-deceased son the same had been carried out through her own brother as a power of attorney.
4. During the course of the writ petition, the petitioners were contending that the Government was colluding with the 3rd respondent and forsaking its claim to the property inspite of the fact that there was a report of a senior ranking IAS Officer, namely Mr. S.R. Ladhar, that the property was really a government property and the entries had all been wrongly done. It purported to show that the property sold was not the place where the school was situated; that there had been very serious discrepancies with reference to the plot number and the property where the school was situated and that it was not comprised in plot number specified in the sale certificate and the property described in the sale certificate merely referred to 100 square yards property. The court had directed a fresh report to be given and yet another report was filed in compliance with the the order of this court which has been filed in this court as Annexure R/3 by the same very officer. In that report again, he states that the scrutiny of the Municipal Corporation record would show that B-XIII/282 was 100 square yards plot but there was confusion prevailing by the fact that the Municipal Corporation had issued a letter under RTI that Block No. XIX was the same as Block XIII and the officer had issued a different letter to Kirpal Singh that there was no old No. B-XIX/398 where it had been previously stated that the school was situate. The number which was assigned to the place where the ITI school was being run was located at Rani Jhansi Road. His conclusion was that B- CWP No. 10198 of 2008 5 XIII/282 which found mentioned in the sale certificate was only comprised of 100 square yards even in the record of the Tehsildar, East Ludhiana.
5. The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would rely on these reports in response to the reliance on documents of title showing that there had been a series of devolutions taken through unimpeachable documents in favour of the 3rd respondent and seeks to reiterate the position that the government alone is the owner of the property.
6. It is rather strange that attempt should be made to seek for adjudication regarding title of the property through writ petition. It is strange that the petitioners must seek for two distinct reliefs which are totally unrelated; one to assuage his apprehension that he was likely to be removed from his office and would, therefore, seek for prayer that he should not be displaced against the government and in the same writ petition he would seek for a direction that the 3rd respondent was an usurper and a property dealer and he was attempting to create documents detrimental to the school and the government interest and that, therefore, a CBI enquiry is to be held. As regards the 1st prayer that he will not be removed from the post, I would think no adjudication is necessary in view of the stand taken by the State in this respect that there was no move to change the existing institute Management Committee, but however, in view of the requirements of training and guidelines of the Director, regarding upgradation of Government ITI, the institute Managing Committee could be reconstituted to fulfill the requirement of the guidelines. The reply ought to, therefore, be sufficient to smoothen the frayed feathers of anxiety of the petitioners that CWP No. 10198 of 2008 6 would require no adjudication or relief in this writ petition.
7. As regards the second plea, the petitioner wholesomely relies on the reports of Mr. Ladhar asserting that the property belongs to the State. In this case there are two important transactions which cannot be lost sight of. One is that the details of the property which had been described as a salable evacuee property that stood acquired in favour of the Government and that property was stated to be located in B-XIII/282 and the name of the evacuee has been given as Abdul Hafee. The description of the property was not with reference to khasra number or any other plot number which are invariably understood only through reference to village records. A physical verification of the identity of the property is what is actually verifiable, namely, of what is evident at the place. No land can be identified by actually looking at it with reference to khasra number. A visible representation that a building can carry through a door is different, for, it is physically verifiable. The same way if the property is identified with reference to a person in occupation and that person occupies a building, the identity of the building itself is the best method of identifying who is occupying it. The property here is identified as being in occupation of the Government industrial school at rent at `125/-. The property which has been sold and which the certificate of sale brings out are with reference to the property as having been sold for `96,100/- and the boundaries are given as :
East: Road
West: Bungalow and compound of Kartar Singh
CWP No. 10198 of 2008 7
North: Dr. J.S. Garewal, Bungalow.
South: Bungalow of Mohinder Singh, PCS and Basant Lal
There are innumerable authorities to the effect that if there is discrepancy between the khasra number or survey number and the boundaries, the boundaries alone shall prevail. In this regard reference can be made to the judgments rendered in Sheodhyam Singh Vs. Mst. Sainchara Kaur AIR 1963 SC 1879; M/s Bhondu Sao Ramdas Vs. Doma Sao AIR 1960 Pat. 294 and Linton Molesworth and Co. Vs. Jagganath Supakar AIR 1924 Pat. 226. Several other high Courts have also reiterated the same position. We have in this case two significant land marks to identify the property; (i) it is a school, which is situated in the property; (ii) it is the property bounded by road on the east which, which cannot shift over a period of time and the bungalows owned by the persons specified thereunder.
8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent states that the property which is in dispute is not denied as situated within the specified boundaries other than what is stated in the sale certificate. The counsel states that there had been some discrepancies in the official records with reference to plot number and it will be untenable to deny the property sold as merely a small extent of 100 square yards by reference to the plot No. B-XIII/282. Apart from this, the State represented through the counsel submits that it is not possible to support the report given by Mr. Ladhar and they have themselves never denied the right of the auction purchaser and Diwan Chand and in his rent petition that was filed the government had actually admitted his ownership. It has been brought CWP No. 10198 of 2008 8 out on record that a petition for eviction was filed by Dewan Chand himself before the Rent Controller and in that petition also the Government conceded the fact that it was a tenant paying `125/- as rent but it was able to fend off the action for ejectment only on its ability to show that the petitioner was not able to establish the personal necessity pleaded in the petition.
9. To sum up, therefore, we have a report of the IAS officer, who declares the government to be the owner by noticing that there are discrepancies in the block number and he would take the property sold to be only 100 square yard by reference only to the block number. I am not surprised at the report, for, he is not expected to know how to assess the ownership. He was not expert in law to determine the ownership and nor he was competent to do so. In fact, he was exceeding his brief in assuming what the Government was not even prepared to say. I need to truly restrain a temptation to characterize the report of Sh. Ladhar by examining it line after line to see how it is loaded with pure legal absurdities of what I do not think is necessary to confront in this case, lest it becomes an adjudication of title in the writ petition. Prima facie, there are adequate documents which ought to carry through the day for the 3rd respondent to assert his title; (i) the schedule of property which was prepared for sale describing it to be property where the government school was situate; (ii) the sale certificate with boundaries; (iii) the rent petition filed by Dewan Chand and the statements filed by the State, admitting to its character as a tenant; (iv) the civil suit compromise decree admitting ownership of legal heirs of Dewan CWP No. 10198 of 2008 9 Chand and conceding to the fact that the sale brought through certain persons describing themselves as acting as power of attorney to be invalid;
(v) actual sale deeds executed by the legal heirs admitted to be owners in the civil court decree in favour of the 3rd respondent.
10. Against all these documents is a person such as the petitioner who wants to make it appear that there is no vested interested in the property and seeks for a contention that the property belongs to Government and that the Government official has actually carried out a report that the property belongs to the Government. I would only see this to be an act of a litigant with camouflages his own vested person masquerading to act to protect State interest. If he is creating spokes to a claim of right by the 3rd respondent stating that it is 300 crores property, the motivations are clear. He is able to make capital of the fact that there are certain discrepancies in block number and by kicking up a cloud of title, he could walk away, if possible with booty for his personal aggrandizement.
11. It is extremely suspicious that the petitioner has any public interest in mind. If there is a school, which is being run, the petitioner has got a leverage by the fact that he has an interest in being concerned with the school administration as a Chairman of IMC. As a person interested in prolonging his office, he is able to keep the true owner at bay. Indeed in this case, he has been able to achieve his nefarious designs for six years. A petition for ejectment in which he has been described as 4th respondent has been stayed and the court has directed retention of status quo. I notice that at the 1st hearing, the 1st petitioner, as a 4th respondent in the rent petition, CWP No. 10198 of 2008 10 has entered appearance and sought for time. Curiously, in the petition filed in this court, there is not even a whisper of the petition filed before the Rent Controller and the action for eviction that he he is facing in a different court. The counsel for the 3rd respondent points out that the petitioner who makes it appears though that he is a saviour of the state interest the police in its investigation, on a complaint by the co-owner Urmila Sachdeva had made a serious indictment against the 1st petitioner, where he was described to be a forger and a person who had joined with others in securing a power of attorney from Urmila Sachdeva and transacting some of the properties. The police report also shows that the 1st petitioner was arrested. The counsel for the petitioner would play down the effect of the criminal case launched against him by stating though the complaint was lodged by Urmila Sachdeva, there was no allegation against him and it was at the instance of the DIG that he has been falsely implicated and arrested. Furthermore, he has challenged the criminal proceedings before this court and it has been stayed by this court.
12. One thing becomes clear that he has an axe to grind to litigate in respect of the property that assures him on office space, without having any threat of dispossession by wearing the cloak of the Chairman of the Institutes of the Managing Committee. He lends himself an air of respectability and makes it appear that he is litigating for the Government. When the Government counsel was here to state that the report of Mr. Ladhar, IAS was unsupportable, I would observe that as a counsel, he understands his business; as counsel again, he understands how untenable CWP No. 10198 of 2008 11 an inference regarding title as obtaining in favour of government has been made by the officer; he understands that the title of the property is not decided merely by reference to khasra number where there are admittedly discrepancies and when there are other glaring physical features and he understands that a plea of estoppel is formidable that he cannot get away from. All this is sought to be trashed by the counsel for the petitioner in characterizing the counsel for the State as being not responsible to defend the State interest. On the other hand, the State defence would expose the hollowness of the petitioner's claim. The writ petition is motivated, vexatious and an abuse of process of court.
13. Before the counsel got on with further arguments after hearing the submissions, I put it to the counsel whether he would take the instructions and withdraw the action. He persisted; he believed he has a case. I hold that the case which is prosecuted before this court is a gross abuse of legal process and the petitioner would require to be visited with exemplary costs, which I fix at `5 lakhs to be paid to the 3rd respondent, having regard to the status involved, the extent of mischief caused and the malafide intention exposed.
14. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs as aforesaid.
October 14, 2014 (K.KANNAN) prem JUDGE