Uttarakhand High Court
Mohan Singh vs Mohan Lal & Others on 19 December, 2014
Author: Alok Singh
Bench: Alok Singh
THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Second Appeal No. 165 of 2014
Mohan Singh S/o Shri Rajaram .....Appellant
Versus
Mohal Lal and others. ....Respondents
Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
Hon'ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral)
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that property of Khasra Nos. 281 and 282, Village Nawada "suit property" was wrongly leased out in favour of respondent No.1 by the Gram Sabha; having acquired knowledge, appellant applied for the cancellation of the Patta; vide order dated 15.01.2003, learned Collector Dehradun was pleased to cancel / revoke the lease granted in favour of defendant No.1 having observed that suit property did not belong to the Gram Sabha and was owned by the plaintiff; judgment dated 15.01.2003 was assailed before the Divisional Commissioner Garhwal in Revision, however, revision came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 23rd August, 2004; judgment passed by the learned Collector dated 15.01.2003 as well as Revisional Court / Divisional Commissioner dated 23.08.2004 were allowed to attain finality; meanwhile, defendant No.1 was successful in getting the possession over the leased out property; plaintiff filed suit No. 303 of 1995 seeking possession over the suit property saying that plaintiff is the owner of the property, in question; despite the judgments passed by the learned Collector as well as the Divisional Commissioner, having force of res judicata, learned Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff and appeal arising therefrom was also 2 dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 01.10.2014.
Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the record, I find that in the present appeal, following substantial questions of law have arisen requiring the adjudication by this Court.
1. As to whether judgment passed by the learned Collector canceling the Patta under Section 198 (4) of UPZA & LR Act dated 15.01.2003 as well as by the Revisional Court / Divisional Commissioner dated 23rd August, 2004 have effect of res judicata in O.S. No. 303 of 1995 ?
2. As to whether defendant No.1 who has acquired the possession pursuant to the illegal lease granted by the Gram Sabha over the land of the plaintiff can be permitted to continue in possession despite the cancellation of the Pattas by the Collector as well as the learned Commissioner ?
3. As to whether findings of fact recorded by both the courts below are perverse and against the evidence available on record and liable to be interfered with under Section 103 C.P.C. ?
Admit the appeal on the substantial questions of law framed hereinbefore.
L.C.R. be summoned.
3Issue notice to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 only by registered post A.D. in addition to normal mode of service.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I direct that till further orders of this Court, status quo pertaining to the nature of the property shall be maintained and no third party interest shall be created.
CLMA No. 14431 of 2014 stands disposed of accordingly.
(Alok Singh, J.) Dated 19th December, 2014 Shiv