Civil Revision No. 5350 of 2006 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5350 of 2006 Date of decision. 11.09.2009 1. Manjit Singh s/o Sardul Singh s/o Shamsher Singh, 2. Smt. Beeb Kaur d/o Sardul Singh, 3. Smt. Charanjeet Kaur w/o Manjit Singh s/o Sardul Singh, 4. Nachhtar Kaur sd/o Sardul Singh s/o Shamsher Singh, all residents of village Nathwan Tehsil Ratia District Fatehabad ....... Petitioners Versus 1. Raghubir Singh s/o Roop Singh s/o Sher Singh, r/o Ratia, Tehsil Ratia District Fatehabad. 2. Bhola Singh s/o Gurdev Singh s/o Dharam Singh r/o Budhlada Road Ratia, Tehsil Ratia District Fatehabad. ...... Respondents 3. Municipal Committee, Ratia through its Secretary, 4. Amarjeet Singh s/o Sardul Singh s/o Shamsher Singh, 5. Smt. Balwinder Kaur sd/o Amrik Singh s/o Shamsher Singh, 6. Harmanjeet Kaur d/o Amrik Singh s/o Shamsher Singh, 7. Charan Singh s/o Bawa Singh s/o Harnam Singh, all residents of village Nathwan Tehsil Ratia, District Fatehabad. 8. Smt. Babli d/o Jagpal Kaur wd/o Randhir Singh r/o village Nathwan Tehsil Ratia District Fatehabad. 9. Kapoor Singh s/o Jeevan Singh s/o Daya Ram; 10.Balwinder Singh s/o Kapoor Singh s/o Jeevan Singh; 11.Madan Lal; 12. Sunder Dass sons of Kanihya Lal s/o Sadhu Ram; 13. Mange Ram s/o Gela Ram s/o Sadhu Ram; 14. Mathura Dass s/o Chiranji Lal, 15. Arjun Dass s/o Nathu Ram s/o Hukam Ram, 16. Paramjeet Singh s/o Kashmir Singh s/o Madu Ram, 17. Pattu Ram s/o Chhanku Ram, all residents of village Ratia, Tehsil Ratia District Fatehabad, 18. State of Haryana through District Collector, Civil Revision No. 5350 of 2006 --2-- Fatehabad, 19. Tehsildar-cum-Sub Registrar Ratia, Tehsil Ratia District Fatehabad. ... Proforma respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Vaneet Soni,Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sanjay Chauhan, Advocate for respondent no.3. Remaining respondents ex-parte. **** Sham Sunder, J. This revision-petition is directed against the order dated 15.06.2006, rendered by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehabad, vide which the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was allowed and the defendants were restrained from alienating the suit land, and raising further construction on the same, till the final decision of the suit, and the order dated 19.09.2006, rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, Fatehabad, vide which it dismissed the appeal. Civil Revision No. 5350 of 2006 --3-- 2. The facts, in brief, are that there is a portion of the land, near Mohalla Khatikan and Dharamshala Khatikan as shown by words 'ABCDEFGHIJ', in the site plan, which was previously, used as a chowk of the Mohalla and it vested in Gram Panchayat, Ratia. After the formation of Municipal Committee, this land vested in it. It was stated that, in the year 1970, one Amrik Singh son of Shamsher Singh (since deceased) in criminal conspiracy with Arjun Singh and Rattan Singh, forged a sale deed no.2165 dated 04.09.1970, in favour of Rattan Singh. Thereafter, in the year, another sale deed no.4038 dated 15.09.1976 was again forged by giving the description of the entire land, mentioned in para no.2, of the plaint. It was further stated that the sale deeds did not create any title, in favour of Rattan Singh, defendant no.2 to 7, and others. It was further stated that these sale deeds also did not reflect the title of the Municipal Committee , over the land, in dispute. It was further stated that the possession of the defendants, over the land, in dispute, could not be treated as possession in the eye of law, because the land is a public property. It was further stated that Amrik Singh and defendant no.5, Amarjit Singh further executed eight sale deeds, in favour of Balwinder Singh, Kapoor Singh, Mange Ram, Madan Lal, Civil Revision No. 5350 of 2006 --4-- Paramjit Singh, Pattu Ram, Amarjit and Arjun Singh, without any right, title or interest, in the property, in dispute. It was further stated that these sale deeds were also void abinitio. It was further stated that on the basis of these sale deeds, defendant nos. 2 to 17, in collusion with each other, made encroachment over the property, in dispute, marked by words 'ABCDEJ' in the year 1996. It was further stated that on 08.11.1995, the defendants applied for the sanction of plan (map), which was rejected by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Ratia, on 13.11.1995. It was further stated that now defendant nos. 2 to 8 made encroachment, over the portion of land, marked by words 'EFIJ' and raised construction over the same, in collusion with the officials of the Municipal Committee, Ratia. It was further stated that they were raising construction over this portion, illegally and without getting sanctioned the map, from the Municipal Committee, Ratia. It was further stated that the Municipal Committee, Ratia did not take any action, against the illegal construction of defendant nos. 2 to 8 under the political pressure, though it was bound to restrain them, from doing so, and from alienating the land, in dispute. Accordingly, the defendants were asked so many times, to refrain from raising construction over the property, in Civil Revision No. 5350 of 2006 --5-- dispute, and alienating the same, the value whereof, was about Rs.6,50,00,000/-, in collusion with the officials of the Municipal Committee, Ratia, but to no avail. Ultimately, a suit for mandatory and prohibitory injunction was filed. 3. Alongwith the suit, an application, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for interim injunction was filed. 4. The Municipal Committee, Ratia, defendant no.1, put in appearance, and filed written statement, as also reply to the application, wherein, it was stated that the sale deeds, in question, were illegal and not binding upon its rights. It was further stated that some persons encroached upon the land of the Municipal Committee, Ratia, and it was entitled to get the same vacated, as per the provisions of law. It was further stated that there was no collusion of the Municipal Committee with defendant nos. 2 to 8. It was further stated that the defendants were not entitled to raise construction over the property, in dispute, without getting the plan sanctioned. It was further stated that the suit land was a part of the abadi deh of village Ratia, falling within the lal-lakir and vested in the Gram Panchayat, Ratia. It was further stated that after the formation of the Municipal Committee, all the properties, earlier vesting Civil Revision No. 5350 of 2006 --6-- in the Gram Panchayat, vested in the Municipal Committee, Ratia. It was further stated that the Municipal Committee, Ratia, was the owner of the land. 5. Defendant nos. 2 to 5 filed a joint written statement, and reply to the application, wherein it was denied that the property shown by letters 'ABCDEFGHIJ' in the site plan, was previously used as a chowk. It was further denied that earlier the land, vested in the Gram Panchayat, Ratia and after the formation of the Municipal Committee, the same vested in the Municipal Committee. It was stated that the land, in dispute, was a private property of Rattan Singh. Rattan Singh purchased the same from Arjun Singh. The answering defendants purchased the same vide registered sale deed no. 4038 dated 15.09.1976, from Rattan Singh, owner. It was further stated that Gram Panchayat, Ratia had no right, title or interest in the land, in dispute, and it was never under its possession and management. It was further stated that the defendants had constructed 28 shops over the land, in dispute, as shown by letters 'JEFI' and building plan of the same was sanctioned by the Municipal Committee, Ratia. It was further stated that the defendants had also taken electricity connection, Civil Revision No. 5350 of 2006 --7-- in the shops and rented out the same. It was further stated that the building of the first floor had been given, on rent, to the Central Co-operative Bank, Hisar. It was further stated that the defendants had also mortgaged the property, in dispute, with Indus-Ind Bank and took loan in relation to the same.It was denied that the sale deeds dated 04.09.1970 and 15.09.1976 were forged and fabricated. It was further stated that the defendants earlier made an attempt to establish their title and possession over the property, in dispute, shown by letters 'JEFI' in civil suit no.859 of 1990 titled as Manjit Singh v. M.C. Ratia. It was further stated that the claim of defendant no.1, regarding ownership of the suit land was rejected and defendant nos. 2 to 5, were held to be the owners in possession of the property, in dispute, vide judgment and decree dated 29.07.1993, against which an appeal filed by the Municipal Committee, which was dismissed. The Regular Second Appeal was also dismissed by this Court. A Special Leave Petition, filed before the Apex Court, was also dismissed, vide order dated 30.10.1995. It was further stated that the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) had no jurisdiction to pass the order dated 13.11.1995 rejecting the plans for raising construction. It was further stated that the building plan, submitted by the Civil Revision No. 5350 of 2006 --8-- defendants/respondents, was never rejected by the competent authority. 6. Defendant no.13/ respondent also filed a written statement and reply to the application, stating therein, that he purchased a part of the suit property, vide sale deed dated 27.03.1984, from defendant no.5 and exclusive possession was handed over to him, at that time. It was further stated that since then he continued to be the owner in possession of the property, in dispute. It was denied that defendant nos. 2 to 17, in collusion with each other, encroached upon the land, in dispute. It was further denied that the Municipal Committee, Ratia, was having any right, title or interest in the property, in dispute. 7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties and, on going through the record, the trial Court, accepted the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as stated above. 6. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by some of the appellants/ defendants, which was dismissed by the Appellate Court, vide its order dated 19.09.2006. 9. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant revision- petition, has been filed by the revision-petitioners. Civil Revision No. 5350 of 2006 --9-- 10. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the documents on record carefully. 11. The Counsel for the revision-petitioners, submitted that the sale deeds executed, in favour of the revision-petitioners, is legal and valid. He further submitted that their vendors had legal and valid title in the property, in dispute, and they were competent to execute the sale deeds. He further submitted that the revision-petitioners did not encroach upon the property, in dispute. It was further submitted by him that the Municipal Committee, Ratia, had no right and interest, in the property, in dispute. He further submitted that the property, in dispute, was neither a chowk, nor ever vested in Gram Panchayat. It was further submitted by him, that after the formation of the Municipal Committee, all the properties, earlier vesting in the Gram Panchayat, did not vest in the Municipal Committee, Ratia. It was further submitted by him, that,in the earlier suit, the Municipal Committee, claimed the ownership of the property, in dispute, but the relief was declined upto the Apex Court. He further submitted that the Courts below acted illegally, in allowing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Civil Revision No. 5350 of 2006 --10-- 12. On the other hand, the Counsel for respondent no.3 , submitted that the vendors of the revision petitioners, were not having any title, in the property, in dispute. He further submitted that the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) rejected the plan, submitted by the revision-petitioners, for raising construction. He further submitted that the Courts below were right in allowing the application, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 13. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. It is settled principle of law that this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, can only interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below, if it finds that the same are either perverse , capricious or some material documents were not taken into consideration, at the time of passing the same. The revision- petitioners claimed their title on the basis of sale deed dated 15.09.1976, executed in their favour by Rattan Singh. Rattan Singh claimed his title on the basis of sale deed dated 04.09.1970, executed by Arjun Singh, in his favour. The Civil Revision No. 5350 of 2006 --11-- measurement and directions of the property, sold, vide sale deed dated 04.09.1970 by Arjun Singh, in favour of Rattan Singh are as under:- East 250 feet Chaupal of Harijan Khatikan West 132 feet Thoroughfare North 123 feet Thoroughfare South 222 feet Thoroughfare The dimensions and the directions mentioned in the sale deed dated 15.09.1976, on the basis whereof, the revision-petitioners claimed to have acquired title in the property, in dispute are as under:- East 271 feet Thoroughfare West 385 feet Thoroughfare North 114 feet Thoroughfare South 32 feet Thoroughfare 14. The Courts below, on comparison of the dimensions of the property, which were mentioned, in the sale deeds dated 04.09.1970 and 15.09.1976, came to the correct conclusion, that the same were completely different, from each other. The Courts below were also right, in holding that even the vendor was not sure about the property, he was allegedly holding and of which he was allegedly claiming the Civil Revision No. 5350 of 2006 --12-- ownership. On the other hand, the Courts below,came to a prima facie conclusion, that the revision-petitioners, had allegedly encroached upon the property, in dispute, which was a public property, and possession of an individual, in relation to the public property, is no possession in the eye of law as held in Babu Ram v. Gram Panchayat, 1997 (Suppl) Civil Court Cases 127. No doubt, it was submitted by the Counsel for the revision-petitioners, that earlier Manjit Singh filed a suit against the Municipal Committee, which was decreed in the year 1993, by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division). The appeals filed against the order of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) by the Municipal Committee, were dismissed upto the Apex Court. It is evident that while passing the order dated 09.01.1995, in the Special Leave Petition, the Apex Court, in clear-cut terms, held that the same, did not stand, in the way of the Municipal Committee, to assert its right, and title to the property. It was further held by the Apex Court that the Municipal Committee should take appropriate steps, if the land, belongs to it, in appropriate forum for its recovery. It means that the question regarding the title of the property, if the same at all vested, in the Municipal Committee, was left open by the Apex Court. The Civil Revision No. 5350 of 2006 --13-- question, whether the sale deeds are genuine, legal and valid and whether the vendor had right and title, in the property, is yet to be finally determined. There is nothing on the record to establish, as to whether, the suit filed, by Manjit Singh was for declaration or permanent injunction, in respect of the entire property. However, it may be stated here, that a citizen, who has a right to use the public property, as claimed by the plaintiffs, can always file a suit that the same being public property, be not encroached upon, and no construction thereon be raised. The earlier suit was only filed, in respect of the property, marked by words 'JEFI'. Even the map, in respect of the property, marked by words 'ABCDEJ' was rejected by the Sub Divisional Officer(Civil), Ratia. The decision, in the earlier suit did not put an end to the litigation, as to whether the revision-petitioners were the owners, in possession of the property, in dispute, or the Municipal Committee was the owner of the same. However, with a view to put an end to the controversy involved, for all times to come, and to avoid multiplicity of litigation, it would be eminently essential to direct the trial Court to strike an issue, if already not struck, whether the revision-petitioners/ defendants are the owners of the property, in dispute, or the Municipal Committee is the Civil Revision No. 5350 of 2006 --14-- owner of the same. The orders of the Courts below do not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The orders impugned are liable to be upheld. 15. For the reasons recorded above, the revision- petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. The trial Court is, however, directed to strike the aforesaid issue, if already not struck, and decide the suit within a period of 8 (eight) months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Three months time shall be granted to the plaintiffs, to conclude their evidence, and three months time shall be granted to the defendants to conclude their evidence. Thereafter one month time, for leading rebuttal evidence, shall be granted to the plaintiffs, in relation to the issue/issues of which the onus lay upon the defendants. If any of the parties failed to conclude their evidence, within the time frame, then the trial Court, shall be at liberty to consider the possibility of closing the same, and decide the suit finally within 15 days from the date of closure of rebuttal evidence. The aforesaid time frame, shall operate, if the parties have not already closed their evidence. Civil Revision No. 5350 of 2006 --15-- 16. Any observation, made in the order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind,on merits of the case. ( Sham Sunder ) Judge September 11, 2009 dinesh