Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India & Anr vs Niranjan Singh & Ors on 1 October, 2013
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
RSA No.1697 of 2012 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.1697 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: 01.10.2013
Union of India & anr. ......Appellant(s)
Versus
Niranjan Singh & ors. ......Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present: Mr. Ram Chander, Advocate for the appellants.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral)
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court had passed the following order on 23.9.2013 which reads thus:
"The suit of the plaintiff-respondents for possession of the suit land has been decreed by both the Courts below.
It may be noticed that the defendant- appellants have contested the suit on the plea of adverse possession which was negatived by the Courts below.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana versus Mukesh Kumar and others AIR 2012 SC 559, has come down heavily upon the State and its instrumentalities for taking the plea of adverse possession and a direction has been given to the Union of India to immediately consider and seriously deliberate Saini Pushpinder 2013.10.09 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh RSA No.1697 of 2012 (O&M) 2 either abolition of law or in the alternative to make suitable amendments in the law of adverse possession.
In the instant appeal, the status quo with regard to possession was directed to be maintained vide order dated 28.5.2012. However, it was observed that in case the appellants want to acquire the land, this order will not be a hurdle in their way.
It may further be noticed that respondents No.1 and 2 have died. Despite the fact that about 1 year's time has already been taken by the appellants yet neither the LRs of the respondents have been brought on record nor counsel for the appellants has taken effective steps to collect the amount and pay the compensation to the right holders.
This Court is of the view that continuation of interim order dated 28.5.2012 is not justified and thus, the same is hereby vacated.
List on 1.10.2013 for further consideration. To be shown in the urgent list."
Sh. Ram Chander, Advocate, who is representing the Union of India, has brought to the notice of this Court an order dated 28.5.2012 which reads thus:
"Counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellants are taking steps to acquire the Saini Pushpinder 2013.10.09 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh RSA No.1697 of 2012 (O&M) 3 land and has placed on record photostat copy of letter No.ENGG/131BN/BSF/WP/2012/9921-23 dated 26.5.2012.
So, notice of motion for 11.10.2012. In the meantime, status quo regarding possession be maintained. However, this order will not create hurdle in acquisition of the land."
On the basis of the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the appellants are already taking steps to acquire the land and therefore, the possession of the appellants be protected till they acquire the land in accordance with law.
Though, it has been admitted before this Court that in view of the law laid down by this Court and approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this appeal is liable to be rejected still the appellants want to be in possession of the property of the respondents in question on the ground that they are acquiring the land. The appellants, who are in unauthorized possession, cannot be protected on such a ground. Even otherwise, the mala fides are writ large on the part of the appellants as in spite of the fact that on 28.5.2012, a submission was made on behalf of the appellants and an effort has been made to submit before this Court that the appellants are in the process of issuing notification yet till date the notification for acquisition of the land has not been issued. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant protection to the appellants, as prayed.
It is made clear that the appellants are in unauthorized possession and therefore, the respondents are entitled to seek their remedy for recovery of damages etc., if any, in accordance with law. Saini Pushpinder 2013.10.09 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh RSA No.1697 of 2012 (O&M) 4
Thus, this appeal is dismissed as no substantial question of law arises in this appeal.
October 01, 2013 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG)
ps JUDGE
Saini Pushpinder
2013.10.09 16:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh