R.S.A. No. 43 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 43 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 09.01.2009 The Assistant. Collector IInd Grade (Tehsildar), Hodal ....Appellant Versus Roshan Lal and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. O.P.Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the appellant. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. Delay condoned. This appeal by the State of Haryana is directed against the judgments of the learned trial Court dated 13.3.2008 and the first Appellate Court dated 25.7.2008. Roshan Lal, respondent No.1 herein, filed a suit for declaration that he is owner in possession of the suit property and as a consequential relief he prayed for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the Gram Panchayat of village Jatoli, the appellant and one Rajinder from interfering in his peaceful possession. The suit property comprised in Rect. No.48, Khasra Nos.14/1(0-4) and 14/4(0-4), total measuring 8 marlas which he had purchased vide registered sale deed dated 29.12.1986 for a R.S.A. No. 43 of 2009 (O&M) -2- consideration of Rs.2,000/- from the previous owner, namely, Om Parkash son of Devi Lal and Kallu son of Kanhiya. Construction was raised by the plaintiff/respondent over the disputed land and he has been residing therein. The plaintiff apprehended threat to his possession at the hands of the Gram Panchayat and therefore filed a civil suit bearing No.738 dated 26.8.1993 for permanent injunction and the suit was decreed on 20.5.1994. A categoric finding was returned that the plaintiff/respondent was owner in possession of the suit property, yet the Gram Panchayat got the mutations sanctioned in its name regarding the suit property comprised in Khara Nos.14/1 and 14/4. The said mutations were got recorded on the basis of a letter dated 12.8.1993 issued by the Naib Tehsildar, Hodal which was alleged to be the result of collusion between the Gram Panchayat through its Sarpanch and the Naib Tehsildar. The suit property comprised in Khasra No.14/1 (0-4) was further transferred by the Gram Panchayat to Rajinder son of Nathi vide gift deed bearing Vasika No.1894 dated 18.1.1994. It was prayed that the said gift deed is also illegal, without any notice or knowledge of the plaintiff/respondent. The Gram Panchayat did not appear despite service through Munadi and was proceeded against ex-parte. Rajinder, the alleged beneficiary of the gift deed, appeared and filed his written statement and admitted the claim of the plaintiff/respondent, but later on no one appeared on his behalf and he was also proceeded against ex-parte. The Assistant Collector IInd Grade, the appellant herein, who was arrayed as defendant No.3 in the suit, filed a written R.S.A. No. 43 of 2009 (O&M) -3- statement and apart from taking the technical objections regarding maintainability, locus-standi and lack of jurisdiction, pleaded on merits that the Gram Panchayat in collusion with the plaintiff/respondent had allotted one plot each to Om Parkash and Kallu unlawfully without any right to do so and the said allotment was cancelled vide letter No. 2079 dated 12.8.1993 and thereafter the plots were transferred in the name of the Gram Panchayat, the previous owner rightly. The earlier suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent bearing No.738 dated 26.8.1993 was also said to be the result of collusion between the plaintiff/respondent and the Sarpanch representing the Gram Panchayat. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit property? OPP 2. Whether letter No.2079 dated 12.8.1993 of Naib Tehsildar, Hodal and the mutation bearing No.845/864 are illegal, null and void and liable to be set aside? OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 6. Whether the suit of plaintiff is bad for want of R.S.A. No. 43 of 2009 (O&M) -4- service under Section 80(2) CPC?OPD 7. Relief. The trial Court while determining issues No.1 and 2, returned the findings in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and held that the sale deed executed by Kallu and Om Parkash stood proved while the claim of the appellants with regard to the ownership of Gram Panchayat and the cancellation of allotment was not proved. Primarily, on these findings the suit of the plaintiff/respondent was decreed. In appeal, the findings were affirmed which has resulted in the filing of this Regular Second Appeal by the appellant. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, who has assailed the findings of the courts below to contend that the evidence has been misread, I am of the opinion that the contention raised is totally misplaced. The plaintiff/respondent has successfully proved his title based on the valid sale deeds executed by the owners Kallu and Om Parkash. The entire transactions leading to the sanctioning and cancellation of mutations in favour of the Gram Panchayat at the behest of the appellant were found to be without any authority or substance as DW1 Naresh Jovel, the then Naib Tehsildar testified to that effect. Even the letter dated 12.8.1993 on the basis of which the cancellation of allotment in favour of Kallu and Om Parkash was passed was not placed on record. In this view of the matter, there is little hesitation to hold that the plaintiff/respondent was successful in proving his case while the appellant has miserably failed to produce any evidence which R.S.A. No. 43 of 2009 (O&M) -5- could lead to any other conclusion than the one which had been arrived at consistently and concurrently by both the Courts below. No substantial question of law is shown to have arisen in the present appeal. Consequently, the same is devoid of any merit and is dismissed. 9.1.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss