R.S.A.No.2196 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.2196 of 2008 Date of Decision : 10.8.2009 Kewal Krishan ...Appellant Versus Ram Rachhpal and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. S.K.Pipat, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Ramanjeet Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Rakesh Chopra, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Defendant No.1. is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit for possession of property described with letters 'X' and 'Y' as 'Gair Mumkin Ruri' was decreed. It is pleaded that one Laik Ram and Lekh Ram, sons of Raja Ram, were non-proprietors. During consolidation of holdings, Laik Ram and Lekh Ram were allotted 'Gair Mumkin Ruri' described as letters 'X' and 'Y' respectively. After their death, the plaintiffs, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Laik Ram and Lekh Ram, being owners are entitled to possession of the Ruri, which was allotted to their predecessor-in- interest. In reply, the stand of the defendant was that of denial of R.S.A.No.2196 of 2008 2 relationship of the plaintiffs with Laik Ram and Lekh Ram and the fact that they were non-proprietors. The allotment to Laik Ram and Lekh Ram during consolidation of holdings was also denied. It was also pointed out that an application was filed by the plaintiffs before Consolidation Officer, under Section 23 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for shot 'the Act'), for possession of suit property, which was dismissed on 23.12.2001, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in view of the jurisdiction conferred under the special Act. The defendant also alleged that he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession. Both the Courts have found that the plaintiffs to be successor- in-interest of Laik Ram and Lekh Ram respectively and that the Gair Mumkin Ruri was allotted to them in consolidation scheme. It was, thus, found that the plaintiffs are entitled to the possession thereof. The plea of adverse possession was negated for the reason that defendant has not admitted ownership of the plaintiffs and, thus, the plea of adverse possession cannot succeed as the plea of adverse possession has to be raised against a specific person and to his knowledge. In view of such findings, the suit was decreed. Learned counsel for the appellant before this Court has vehemently argued that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in terms of Section 44 read with Section 23 of the Act. It is contended that the Consolidation Officer is competent to deliver possession to the allottees, who have been allotted plots in consolidation scheme, therefore, in terms of Section 44 of the Act, jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. R.S.A.No.2196 of 2008 3 After hearing learned counsel for the appellant at some length, I do not find any merit in the said argument. The consolidation scheme have settled rights of the parties. In terms of the scheme, the plots were allotted to Laik Ram and Lekh Ram. Since, possession could not be handed over to them for one or the other reason, therefore, the plaintiffs will not be deprived of their rights to take possession from the Civil Court. The plaintiffs have earlier invoked the jurisdiction of the Consolidation Officer to claim such possession, but such request was not entertained and it was in fact observed that it was Civil Court, which will be competent to grant necessary relief to the plaintiffs. In view of the said fact, the plea that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred, is not tenable. In view of the findings recorded, which do not suffer from any patent illegality or irregularity, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court in second appeal. Dismissed. 10.8.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE