RSA No.2472 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.2472 of 2008 Date of Decision: 30.10.2009 Surjeet Singh and others .....Appellants Vs. State of Haryana and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Himanshu Raj, AAG, Haryana for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. S.S. Antal, Advocate for respondent no.3. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The appellants challenge judgements and decrees dated 1.6.2006 and 9.12.2006,passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambala and the learned District Judge,Ambala, dismissing the suit and the appeal. The plaintiff-appellants filed a suit for perpetual injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering in their peaceful possession over the suit land comprised in Khewat/khatauni No.190/263 Min, Khasra Nos. 4/1, 4/10 total measuring 11 kanals 14 marlas. The appellants pleaded that they are in cultivating possession for the last more than 30 years and are, therefore, entitled to transfer of land to their names, under instructions issued by the government. It is alleged that as respondent no.3 claims to have purchased the suit land from the RSA No.2472 of 2008 2 Rehabilitation department and threatens to dispossess them, a perpetual injunction be issued restraining the respondents from dispossessing the appellants. In response, the State of Haryana and the Tehsildar filed a written statement denying that the appellants are in possession. It was asserted that the suit land was auctioned on 27.5.1993 in a limited auction reserved for Harijans and has been purchased by respondent no.3 for a sum of Rs.27,000/-. Respondent no.3, raised similar pleas but in addition asserted that after the auction, a conveyance deed has been executed on 31.8.1993 and possession has been delivered to him. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues :- “1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction on the ground alleged ? OPP. 2. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable ? OPD. 3. Relief.” After considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the trial court dismissed the suit by holding that the appellants have failed to prove their possession for the last 30 years or their right to allotment of the suit land. It was further held that as respondent no.3 has purchased the suit land in an auction reserved for Harijans, a conveyance deed had been executed in his favour and as possession has been delivered, the appellants cannot be granted any relief. Aggrieved by the judgement and decree dated 1.6.2006, the appellants filed an appeal. Vide judgement and decree dated 9.12.2006, the learned District Judge, Ambala, dismissed the appeal. RSA No.2472 of 2008 3 Counsel for the appellants submits that the revenue record reflects the appellants in possession as `Gair Marusi' from the year 1980-81 onwards and therefore, the finding that the appellants are not in possession is factually incorrect. It is submitted that as per press notes issued by the then State of Punjab and policies framed by the State of Haryana, a person in possession of agricultural evacuee property has a prior right of allotment. The auction of the suit land whether limited to Harijans or not is therefore, null and void. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the appellants have no right, title or interest in the suit land . The suit land was purchased by respondent no. 3 in a limited auction reserved for Harijans as he was the highest bidder, at Rs.27,000/-. A conveyance deed has been executed in his favour and possession has been delivered, by Rapat Roznamcha No.476 dated 28.8.1993, pursuant to warrant of possession of even date, Ex.D-14. After the delivery of possession, the Khasra Girdwari has been recorded in the name of respondent no.3 and therefore, the findings recorded by the courts below are factually and legally correct. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants, perused the impugned judgements and find no reason to hold that any question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises for adjudication. Admittedly, the appellants are unauthorised occupants. The appellants' claim that the land should have been allotted to them pursuant to press notes and policies framed by the State, cannot be accepted, as the land in dispute was reserved for allotment to Harijans. The suit land has been purchased by respondent no. 3, a Harijan, in a limited auction. The appellants admittedly are not Harijans and, therefore, have no right to pray for allotment or challenge the RSA No.2472 of 2008 4 validity of the auction. As regards the appellants' possession, the appellants have failed to rebut the warrant of possession dated 28.8.1993, the Rapat Roznamcha No.476 dated 28.8.1993, that records the delivery of possession to respondent no.3. It would also be necessary to mention here that following the delivery of possession, the Khasra Girdwaris for the years 1993-94, 1998-2001 and 2001 to 2003 record respondent no.3 in possession of the suit land. In view of the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the courts below and in the absence of any substantial question of law, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 30.10.2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE