R.S.A.No. 2970 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2970 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.2.2011 Pritam Singh ......Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sanjay Majithia, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Jashanpreet Singh, Advocate for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction challenging the order dated 6.8.1998. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that he had purchased the suit land vide sale deeds dated 8.11.1995, 24.11.1995 and 15.12.1995. Mutations were sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of the said sale deeds and since then, plaintiff was in possession of the suit land. Defendants tried to dis-possess the plaintiff from the suit land in the year 1999 and a suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff. In reply to the said suit, it was averred by the defendants that the allotment in favour of vendor of the plaintiff had been cancelled vide order dated 6.8.1998. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that R.S.A.No. 2970 of 2010 (O&M) 2 Bhikham Singh @ Bhiku was found entitled to the land measuring 29 standard acres 14 ½ units. The same was allotted to him in village Hizrawan Khund and possession was delivered to him on 28.6.1954. The said Bhikham Singh died on 22.8.1977 and during his life time he did not file any claim for additional allotment of the land. Hari Singh through attorney Ishwar Chand, in connivance with Assistant Registrar, Haryana sought additional allotment to the extent of 9 standard acre 1 ½ unit by impersonating as legal heir of Bhikham Singh. Suit land was allotted to Hari Singh. The allotment was challenged by one of the legal heirs of Bhikham Singh by filing an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Sales) Ambala. Plaintiff purchased the land in dispute from Hari Singh. Vide order dated 6.8.1998, the allotment in favour of Hari Singh was cancelled. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the order dated 6.8.1998 passed by the defendant No.2 is illegal and have no effect on the right of the plaintiff? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is owner and in possession of the land as detailed in the head note of the plaint ? OPP 3. If issue No.2 is proved whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction, as prayed ? OPP 4.Whether the suit is barred by time ? OPD 5. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit as alleged in preliminary objections No. 7 R.S.A.No. 2970 of 2010 (O&M) 3 and 8 of the written statement of the defendants? OPD 6. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of notice u/s 80 of CPC ? OPD 7. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD 8. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 9. Relief.” The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 30.3.2009. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 30.7.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Panchkula. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Courts below had erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. The land had, in fact, been allotted in the name of the deceased. Hence, the said allotment could not be cancelled. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Gurdev Singh and another vs. Jagroop Singh RLR 1993 (1) 7, wherein, in para 7, it was held as under:- “The learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the findings of the lower appellate Court and has referred to paragraph 17 of Chapter VIII of the Land Resettlement Manual, 1952, which reads as under:- “17. Even where a displaced landholder in R.S.A.No. 2970 of 2010 (O&M) 4 whose name land stands in the records received from West Punjab has died, the allotment is made in the name of the deceased. In the fard taqsim, therefore, the entry will be in e name of the deceased landholder. Possession is ordinarily given to the heirs but there must be regular mutation proceedings before the entry in column 3 of the fard taqsim is altered in favour of the heirs.” The learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the finding of the lower appellate court to the effect that the allotment in favour of Jawala Singh deceased in the year 1968 would be meaningless and no allotment could be made in favour a dead person, is against the law; that the allotment made in favour of Jawala Singh is according to paragraph 17 of Chapter VIII of the Land Resettlement Manual,1952, and, therefore, the same is not a nullity; that the allotment in favour of Jawala Singh was made in accordance with law and, therefore, Surjit singh has rightly inherited the suit land from his father,Jawala Singh, and that as Surjit Singh has inherited the suit land from his father, therefore, he was entitled to transfer the land in favour of the defendants- R.S.A.No. 2970 of 2010 (O&M) 5 appellants.” After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. In the present case, Bhikham Singh was initially allotted land and Hari Singh by impersonating as legal heir of Bhikham Singh, got allotted additional land in connivance with the revenue officials. The entire proceedings were fictitious. In these circumstances, vide order dated 6.8.1998, Chief Settlement Commissioner cancelled the additional allotment. Since Hari Singh was not having any land in his possession as owner, he could not execute valid sale deeds in favour of any person. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff as plaintiff could not derive a better title than his vendor. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant fails to advance the case of the appellant. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 09, 2011 anita