Civil Revision No.63 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No.1175-CII of 2009 and Civil Revision No.63 of 2009 Date of decision:- 16.01.2009. Ram Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Baljit Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr. S.P. Chahar, Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH J. C.M. No. 1175-CII of 2009 This is an application under Section 151 CPC for placing on record declaration report dated 02.05.2007 (Annexure P-7), Sale deed dated 07.05.2002 (Annexure P-8) and Sale deed dated 24.05.2002 (Annexure P-9). For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the documents mentioned above are taken on record. C.R. No.63 of 2009 The petitioner-defendant No.5 has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned orders dated 13.06.2008, 10.08.2007, 16.02.2006 and 14.01.2006 (Annexures P-1 to P-4 respectively). The facts giving rise to the matter in controversy are as under:- Plaintiffs-respondents No.1 and 2 filed a civil suit No.272 dated 20.05.2006/28.09.2002 for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction before the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Rohtak against defendants-respondents No.3 to 6. The prayer in the civil suit, was that the sale deed No.569 dated 01.08.2002 registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Sampla, Civil Revision No.63 of 2009 -2- District Rohtak in favour of defendant No.1-Zile Singh is without consideration and being a forged document creates no right, title or interest in favour of defendant No.1-Zile Singh and as such not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. It was further prayed that the plaintiffs are exclusively owners in possession over khasra/plot No.4553 mentioned in para No.2 to 4 of the plaint and marked as ABCD, shown in red colour in the attached site plan. During the pendency of the civil suit, Ram Kumar-petitioner joined as defendant No.5 and opposed the suit by filing a separate written statement. Preliminary objection was raised regarding the maintainability and locus standi as well as non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it was submitted by petitioner-Ram Kumar that initially the land belonged to Ram Sahai and Shyam Sukh. However, it was denied that khasra No.4553 had came in the share of Bhola. It was also denied that plaintiffs are owners in possession over the suit property and plaintiff No.1 had not become the owner of khasra No.4553 by way of inheritance and all legal heirs of Ram Sahai and Shyam Sukh are owners in possession according to their share. It was also pleaded that Ram Kumar-petitioner-defendant No.5 has no concern with khasra No.4553 and he has purchased 116 square yards of land comprising in khasra No.4573 from Karamvir and his mother for a sale consideration of Rs.18,000/- by way of registered sale deed No.129 dated 07.05.2002 and demarcation was got conducted of khasra Nos.4553 and 4573 in the presence of plaintiff and others on 08.01.2001. Thereafter, he has constructed boundary wall around khasra No.4573. The matter was taken up in Lok Adalat on 14.01.2006 and it was settled between the parties that demarcation of plot No.4573 may be got conducted and in case it is found that defendant No.5-Ram Kumar is in possession of more than 116 square yards of land purchased by him then he will vacate that portion. It was also agreed that in case he is found in possession of only 116 square yards of land out of the plot No. 4573, then plaintiffs will withdraw their suit. In view of consensus arrived at between the parties, Halqa Kanugo was directed to demarcate Civil Revision No.63 of 2009 -3- the plot No.4573 alongwith the gali situated on Eastern side and Local Commissioner was asked to submit his report on or before 16.02.2006. The local commissioner demarcated the land on 14.02.2006 and found Ram Kumar to be in possession of 200 square yards i.e. 84 square yards in excess. However, counsel for defendant No.5-Ram Kumar submitted that he is not agreeing with the report, submitted by the local commissioner and objected the same. Again a joint statement for demarcation of Khasra No.4573 and 4553 was given and it was agreed in the same terms that in case defendant No.5 is found in excess possession of the land measuring 116 square yards then he will remove the same and if the land is found upto the extent of 116 square yards, then the plaintiffs shall withdraw the suit. In these circumstances the local commissioner was again directed to visit the spot and submit the demarcation report and the matter was adjourned to 04.05.2006. Thereafter, again, the local commissioner submitted his report dated 02.05.2007 (Annexure P-7) and found that possession of Ram Kumar son of Mange Ram is in the land measuring 197 square yards and in this way he is occupying the excess area of 81 square yards. In view of the consensus order dated 14.01.2006, passed by learned Lok Adalat, Ram Kumar-defendant No.5 was directed to hand over the possession of excess land to his seller within two months from the date of passing of the order i.e. 10.08.2007. Aggrieved against the order dated 10.08.2007, Ram Kumar- petitioner filed an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak and the same was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak vide order dated 13.06.2008 (Annexure P-1). In these circumstances, the present revision petition has been filed. Learned Additional District Judge has dismissed the appeal on the ground that order passed by learned Lok Adalat is not appealable under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure as this is not a “decree” rather it is an award under the provisions of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Furthermore, Section 21 of the Legal Civil Revision No.63 of 2009 -4- Services Authorities Act provides that every Award made by Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties in dispute and no appeal shall lie to any of the court against the Award. Even on merits also, it has been observed that the report submitted by the Local Commissioner was perfectly as per law after fixing pucca points and the same is inconsonance with the instructions of the Financial Commissioner. In the present revision also, the same very points have been re- agitated. The main contention of the counsel for the petitioner-defendant No.5 is that he is not in excess area of the land in possession rather he is only in possession of 116 square yards of land. This contention of the counsel for the petitioner is belied by the Ist demarcation report dated 14.02.2006 and even the 2nd demarcation report dated 02.05.2007 (Annexure P-7) placed on record in present revision petition, which is clearly shows that:- “plot No. 4553 was measured as Eastern side 7 gathe and Worthern side 8 ½ gathe and Southern side 5 gathe and Northern side 9 ½ gathe, likewise plot No.4573 is East 10 ¼ West 10 South 3 North 1 ¾ gathe, on the plot in dispute (plot No.4573) Ram Kumar son of Mange Ram has after constructing foundation has in possession 197 square yards and on the Southern-Eastern side has left a street of 10 feet x 41 feet on spot which goes upto plot No.4553”. The perusal of report produced above proves that Ram Kumar petitioner is in possession of excess land to the extent of 84 and thus his contention cannot be accepted. It is further submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that the orders are passed by learned Trial Court in the capacity of Civil Judge and not as a Lok Adalat, hence, the same are not binding upon the petitioner-defendant No.5. This contention also cannot be accepted as a detailed finding has been recorded by learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak Civil Revision No.63 of 2009 -5- while passing the order dated 13.06.2008 in para Nos. 16 and 17 that those orders were passed by learned Lok Adalat and not in the capacity of Civil Court. In view of the discussion above, no interference is called for under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the impugned orders dated 13.06.2008, 10.08.2007, 16.02.2006 and 14.01.2006 (Annexures P-1 to P-4 respectively). Dismissed, no order as to costs. January 16, 2009 (JASWANT SINGH) vj JUDGE