Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Another vs Baljit Kaur on 4 February, 2011
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
R.S.A.No. 3872 of 2007 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
R.S.A.No. 3872 of 2007 (O&M)
Date of decision: 4.2.2011
State of Haryana and another
......Appellants
Versus
Baljit Kaur
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Deepak Jindal, DAG, Haryana.
Mr.K.S.Cheema, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
****
SABINA, J.
Plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for declaration alleging therein that Jagjeewan Singh was the owner of the suit land along with other land situated in the village. During his life time, Niranjan kaur became owner in possession of land measuring 155 kanals 8 marlas. Niranjan Kaur executed a Will dated 2.1.1995 in favour of the plaintiff. After the death of Niranjan kaur, plaintiff became owner in possession of the suit land. Defendant No.3 illegally got mutation R.S.A.No. 3872 of 2007 (O&M) 2 of the suit land sanctioned in his favour. The same was not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had filed a suit challenging the said mutation and the same was decided in favour of the plaintiff. The land of Tirlochan Preet Singh was declared surplus in the year 1990 and the land belonging to the plaintiff had been illegally included in the surplus pool vide order dated 18.12.1997. Hence, mutation No.609 dated 23.9.2000 sanctioned in favour of the State was illegal.
Defendant No.1, in its written statement, denied the contentions in the plaint. It was averred that the land belonging to Tirlochan Preet Singh had been declared surplus vide order dated 30.7.1963. Mother of Tirlochan Preet Singh had filed an appeal against the said order before Commissioner, Hisar Division and the case was remanded back to the Collector Narwana and vide order dated 24.10.1990, 32 standard acres 9 units of land was declared surplus instead of 58 standard acre 22 units. The said order was upheld in appeal by Commissioner, Hisar vide order dated 5.10.1993 and by Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Haryana vide order dated 21.4.1994. Civil writ petition filed by Tirlochan Preet Singh was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 9.10.1996. Niranjan Kaur was not owner of the suit land.
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:-
"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration and R.S.A.No. 3872 of 2007 (O&M) 3 permanent injunction as prayed for in the head note of the plaint, on the grounds mentioned in the plaint? OPP.
2. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 of CPC? OPD
3. Whether the suit is bad for want of advalorem court fee? OPD
4.Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit and no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD
5. Whether the present suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD
6. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit? OPD
7. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD
8. Relief."
The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 28.9.2004. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 19.7.2007 passed by Additional District Judge, Jind. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal.
As per jamabandi for the year 1990-91 Ex.P-1 Niranjan Kaur is described as owner in possession of the suit property. The R.S.A.No. 3872 of 2007 (O&M) 4 Will executed by Niranjan kaur in favour of the plaintiff dated 2.1.1995 was upheld by the Civil Court in civil suit No.229 dated 11.5.1998/ 4.6.1999 decided on 15.9.1999 Ex.P-2. Vide the said judgment and decree Ex.P-2 and P-3, plaintiff was declared owner in possession of the suit land and mutation sanctioned in favour of Tirlochan Preet Singh was set aside. As per Ex.P-9, order dated 16.1.1978, it was held by the Competent Authority, Narwana that Niranjan Kaur was not having any surplus land. Hence, the land which had come to the plaintiff on the basis of Will executed by Niranjan Kaur, in her favour, could not be included in the surplus pool while declaring the surplus area in the hands of Tirlochan Preet Singh. Learned Additional District Judge had, thus, rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff.
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 February 04, 2011 anita