R.S.A.No. 1469 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1469 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.3.2011 Surjit Kaur ......Appellant Versus Municipal Council, Dharamkot and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.S.P.Jain, Sr.Advocate, Mr.Dheeraj Jain, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that she had become owner in possession of the property in dispute. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that she had become the owner of the suit property. As per the revenue record i.e. jamabandi for the year 1939-40, the land measuring 2 kanals 12 marlas was shown to be owned by shamlat deh. However, the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur vide order dated 4.1.1976 sanctioned the mutation No.20118 in favour of the defendant regarding ownership of the suit property. The said order was illegal, R.S.A.No. 1469 of 2010 (O&M) 2 null and void. The plaintiff had purchased the land measuring 5 ½ marlas from Guddi wife of Gurdev Singh, Amarjit Sing and Gurdev Singh vide three sale deeds regarding 1/3rd share each executed by the above said vendors in favour of Ram Dass for ` 99.94 paise each in the presence of the marginal witnesses. The above said sale deeds were scribed by Ram Parkash, document writer vide vasika Nos.931 to 933. The possession of the suit land was handed over by the vendors to Ram Dass. The defendants never remained in possession of the plot in dispute for the last more than 30 years. Municipal Committee had filed an ejectment application under Section 4 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery), Act, 1973 and the same was allowed by the Collector, Ferozepur. An appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur vide order dated 13.5.1999. The defendants, in their written statement, averred that the Municipal Committee had become owner of the suit property and mutation had been sanctioned in favour of defendant No.1 on 2.7.1981. As per notification dated 4.1.1976 entire shamlat deh land, Nazool land and rehabilitation land stood transferred in the name of Municipal Committees/ Notified Area Committees. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of shop and house in dispute? OPP. 2. Whether the sale deed dated 8.3.1998 by Guddi, Gurdev Singh and Amarjeet respectively in favour of R.S.A.No. 1469 of 2010 (O&M) 3 Ram Dass are valid, if so, its effect? OPP 3. Whether the order dated 23.9.1998 passed by Deputy Director, Local Government, Ferozepur and order dated 13.5.1999 by Commissioner, Ferozepur are illegal, if so its effect? OPP 4.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration and permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 5. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit ? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 7. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice ? OPD 8. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands, if so its effect ? OPD 9. Relief.” The Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) vide judgment and decree dated 1.12.2008 partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff and declared the plaintiff to be owner in possession of the shop and house measuring 5 ½ marlas bearing khasra No.620 min. The order passed by the Deputy Director, Local Government, Ferozepur dated 23.9.1998 and order dated 13.5.1999 passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur were declared null and void. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by the Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 20.10.2009 and consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing learned senior counsel for the appellant, I R.S.A.No. 1469 of 2010 (O&M) 4 am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Admittedly, as per the jamabandi for the year 1939-40, old khasra No.1629 was recorded as shamlat deh. Since the land was recorded as shamlat deh, it vested in the gram panchayat. Thereafter, the suit land was transferred in favour of the Municipal Council. The Municipal Council had adopted the procedure as per law and had moved an application for ejectment of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had also earlier approached this Court alleging that he was ready to purchase the suit land and this Court had granted permission to the plaintiff to apply to the appropriate authority for purchase of the land. Thus, in these circumstances, the learned Additional District Judge rightly held that the plaintiff had herself admitted the ownership of the defendants qua the suit property. Since the defendants were taking recourse to law, the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable. 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 March 25, 2011 anita