RSA No.2468 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 2468 of 2008 Date of decision: 24.02.2011 Naresh Kumar .....Appellant Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.N.K.Manchanda, Advocate, for the appellant Mr.Satish Bhanot,Deputy Advocate General, Punjab Mr.Navin Batra Advocate for respondent No. 3 **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that he was owner of land measuring 13 kanals bearing khasra No. 372/2. A proposal was made for installation of Water Supply Project in village Nard and other adjoining villages by defendants No. 1 and 2. Defendant No.3 at the instance of defendants No. 1 and 2 approached the mother of the plaintiff Satya Devi for providing the land measuring 100' x 50' towards the southern side of khasra number adjoining the road for raising super structure required for the smooth functioning of motor pump for supply of water. The mother of the plaintiff was assured that the plaintiff would be granted a job by defendants No. 1 and 2 in RSA No.2468 of 2008 2 their Office in case property measuring 100' x 50' was given to defendant No. 1 and 2. On this assurance, the land in question was given to defendants No. 1 and 2 for the purpose of water supply. However, the plaintiff had not been provided any job by defendant No.1 and 2 nor they had paid any compensation to the plaintiff qua use and occupation of the land belonging to the plaintiff. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff. Defendants no.1 and 2 in their written statement admitted the fact that the plaintiff was owner of khasra No. 372/2(13-0) situated in village Nard. The other contentions in the plaint were denied. It was averred that the defendants were owner in possession of 5000 square feet of land out of khasra number in question and the same had been provided to the answering defendants by the Gram Panchayat of village vide resolution No.2 dated 6.1.2000 for construction of water works. Defendant No.3 in its written statement averred that a proposal had been made for installation of water supply project in the village Cheekna for supply of water to the said village and other adjoining villages. As no proper place could be arranged by defendants No. 1 and 2, they approached the Gram Panchayat of village Cheekna. The Gram Panchayat approached the mother of the plaintiff for providing land in question to defendants No.1 and 2. Satya Devi agreed to provide the suit land to defendants No. 1 and 2 subject to the condition that a job be provided to the plaintiff by defendants No. 1 and 2.The officials of defendants No. 1 and 2 had agreed to this proposal and had installed the pump in the property in dispute. RSA No.2468 of 2008 3 On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property?OPP 2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for?OPP 3.Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 4.Relief” Vide judgment and decree dated 10.2.2007, the Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Anandpur Sahib decreed the suit of the plaintiff and held that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation in respect of the acquisition of the suit land measuring 100' x50'at the current market price to be assessed and paid by the defendants within a period of two months. The plaintiff was further held entitled to get mesne profits to the extent of value of the produce of that area from 6.1.2000 till the filing of the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants No. 1 and 2 preferred an appeal and the same was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.2007 and, consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. It was further held that the judgment and decree against the village Panchayat shall remain intact. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the plaintiff was owner of the suit land. The appellate Court had erred in holding that the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit land. As per Exhibit P1, plaintiff was described to be owner in possession of the RSA No.2468 of 2008 4 suit land. The fact that the plaintiff was owner of the suit land was admitted by defendants No. 1 and 2 in their written statement. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the mother of the plaintiff had sworn an affidavit that she was owner of the suit land. The substantial question of law that arises in this case is as to whether the learned first appellate Court has misread the evidence on record and the finding of the said Court are perverse. The case of the plaintiff is that he was owner of the suit land and about 10 marlas of land belonging to the plaintiff had been taken by defendants No. 1 and 2 for construction of water works but no compensation had been paid to him. Defendants No. 1 and 2 had assured that a job would be provided to the plaintiff and on this assurance, the land had been given to defendants No. 1 and 2 for construction of water works. A perusal of Exhibit P1, copy of the jamabandi for the year 2000-2001 reveals that the plaintiff is owner in possession of khasra number 372/2(13-0). Out of the said land, 12 kanals 10 marlas has been described as Barani, whereas, 10 marlas of land has been described as gair mumkin tubewell Government in column No.8. Merely on the basis of affidavit of Satya Devi Exhibit DB, it cannot be said that the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit land. As per Exhibit DL/1, copy of the jamabandi for the year 1985- 86, the suit property was earlier owned by Ananat Ram, grand father of the plaintiff. Mutation qua his inheritance was sanctioned in favour of Ram Sarup, father of the plaintiff. The land in question was taken from the plaintiff in January 2000. At that relevant time, plaintiff has been described as owner in possession of the suit land as per RSA No.2468 of 2008 5 revenue record. The learned first Appellate Court has, thus, misread the evidence on record while coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit land. Rather the first appellate Court has not given any reason while arriving at the conclusion that the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit land. In these circumstances, the finding of the learned first appellate Court to the effect that the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit land is against the record and is ,thus, perverse. The learned first appellate Court has misread the evidence on record. The substantial question of law that arises in this case stands answered accordingly. Admittedly, 10 marlas of land belonging to the plaintiff has been taken by defendants No. 1 and 2 for construction of water works . However, no compensation was paid to the plaintiff by defendants No. 1 and 2. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court had rightly held that the plaintiff was entitled to receive compensation qua land measuring 100' x 50' taken by defendants No. 1 an 2 for construction of water works. Defendants No. 1 and 2 were also liable to be paid mesne profits to the plaintiff qua use and occupation of the land in question. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree of the learned first appellate Court dated 30.11.2007 are set aside. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court dated 10.2.2007 are upheld. ( Sabina ) Judge February 24,2011 arya RSA No.2468 of 2008 6