RSA No.1183 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1183 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:November 10, 2009 Shingara Singh and others ...........Appellants Versus State of Punjab and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.M.S.Rai,Advocate for the Appellants. Mr.J.S.Sandhu,Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents. ** Sabina, J. Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration . The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Nakodar vide judgment and decree dated 22.11.2007. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs preferred an appeal and vide judgment and decree dated 12.11.2008, learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court , Jalandhar dismissed the same. Hence, the present appeal. RSA No.1183 of 2009 (O&M) 2 The case of the parties, as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment reads as under:- 2.The plaintiff filed suit for declaration to the effect that he is entitled to get the land measuring 69K-6Mls, detailed in the head note of the plaint situated in the area of village Chhowhle, Tehsil Nakodar Distt. Jalandhar and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into the possession of the plaintiff. 3. The brief facts as contained in the amended plaint are that the plaintiff is in cultivating possession of the land in dispute. The possession over the land is more than 15 acres and is continuous and uninterrupted and till today nobody has disturbed the same. On the basis of the possession as per policy of the Government, the land was transferred vide file No.1333/VI-in the year 1992. The plaintiff paid earnest money amounting to Rs.2640/- and also paid Ist instalment to 5th instalments of Rs.23232/- on 1.6.1993. The defendants did not accept the instalments of the land from the plaintiff by saying that defendants got notification from the Punjab Government for the year 1958 vide which the land in dispute and other land of the Government which has been transferred is wrong. The defendants were never in possession of the land in dispute. The Khasra Girdawari is in the name of the plaintiff. Now the defendants are threatening to snatch the land to which they have no right. 3. On Summoning, defendant No. 1 & 2 filed written statement. They took the preliminary objections that the suit is not RSA No.1183 of 2009 (O&M) 3 maintainable. Necessary notice under Section 80 CPC has not been served. The plaintiff is neither owner nor in possession of the suit property. The land measuring 4396K-15 Mls. of village Chhowhle being inferior and evacuee land was transferred by regular sale deed by the Punjab Government to defendant No.3. Hence, defendant No.3 is owner of the property. Moreover, the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands. On merits, they denied each and every para of the plaint. Similarly,written statement was filed by defendant No.3 . They asserted that they are owners in possession of the suit property. In fact, they have received this property by way of transfer. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court :- “1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for? OPP 2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP 3.Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 4.Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 CPC?OPD 5. Whether the instant suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder for parties?OPD 6.Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action and no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 7. Relief.” RSA No.1183 of 2009 (O&M) 4 After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal is devoid of any merit. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they were owner of the suit land. The case of the plaintiffs is that the conveyance deed with regard to the suit land was passed in their favour by the defendants. Plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land since long. However, it has been observed by the Courts below that in Civil Writ Petition No. 4359 of 1994, it was held that the auction had been held under mistaken belief which had crept in due to non implementation of the order dated 15.10.1971. As per the said order, the land had been given to the Forest Department and did not vest with the Rehabilitation Department. As per Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, no deforestation resulting into deterioration of environment could be permitted. In these circumstances, the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that the plaintiffs had not become owner of the property in dispute and the conveyance deed executed in favour of the plaintiffs was under the mistaken belief. The findings of fact given by the Courts below do not call for any interference by this Court in appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this case which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge November 10 , 2009 arya RSA No.1183 of 2009 (O&M) 5