IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.2052 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 5th September, 2011 Kehar Singh … Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate for Mr. Virender Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, Dy. Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Plaintiff, having lost in two rounds of litigation, has instituted present regular second appeal. He had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the perpetual allotment dated 22nd December, 1981 in favour of the plaintiff by defendant No.1 of Nazool Land measuring 24 Kanals 1 Marla, detail and description whereof was given in the head note of the plaint, was irrevocable and therefore, the defendants had no right to resume the land given in allotment after having accepted the entire sale price of the same. Therefore, a prayer was made that the resumption be set aside and defendants be restrained from dispossessing and auctioning the suit property. Both the courts below have non-suited the appellant-plaintiff on the ground that earlier he had filed a suit in the year 1997, which was decided in his favour but the lower appellate Court had reversed the Regular Second Appeal No.2052 of 2009 (O&M) findings of the trial Court and in regular second appeal this Court had held that due to the conduct of the appellant-plaintiff he was not entitled to allotment of the land. The relevant findings given by this Court in RSA No.1580 of 1999 decided on 7th December, 1999 have been reproduced in para No. 9 of the trial Court judgment. It will be apposite here to reproduce the same as under: “9. … … … It is clean from the above rule that a person who owns some land, is entitled for allotment of such area of Nazool Land as would make up the unit of Nazool Land as defined in the rules, when added to his own land. In this regard, the lower appellate Court noticed that land measuring 8 kanal 17 marlas was allotted to the appellant vide allotment letter Exhibit D-2 dated 9.12.1976 and in pursuance of this, he also took possession of the above land vide rapat roznamcha dated 14.5.1977, wherein the presence of appellant is also recorded and the above entry also bears his signatures. The lower appellate Court also noticed that even in his own affidavit Ex.D4 the appellant admitted allotment of surplus land, but he did not mention the date of allotment either of the surplus land or of Nazool Land. The lower appellate Court also came to the conclusion that even if the allotment of surplus area had been cancelled subsequently on 15.3.1989, the default of the appellant of not disclosing the allotment of surplus area would not stand cured. It was found as a fact that the appellant intentionally and with a view to retain the best of two kinds of land concealed the fact of allotment of surplus land and thus got allotment of Nazool land in his favour. In the circumstances, the lower appellate Court rightly observed that the appellant was not entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction and permanent injunction as prayed in the suit.” 2 Regular Second Appeal No.2052 of 2009 (O&M) Counsel for the appellant has stated that even though in the earlier suit it was held that the appellant was not entitled to allotment, the respondent-defendant-department had accepted the installment towards sale consideration, and therefore, the resumption notice could not be issued. Counsel has submitted that from issuance of the resumption notice, it can be safely inferred that the respondent- defendant-department had accepted the allotment. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that in RSA No.1580 of 1999, to which appellant-plaintiff was a party, this Court had specifically held that due to the conduct of the appellant, he is not entitled to allotment of the land. Once the appellant-plaintiff was not held entitled to allotment, there is no question of its subsequent resumption. If a wrong notice has been given by the department, that in itself will vest no cause of action in the appellant, especially when on merits it was held that appellant was not entitled to allotment. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon ‘Ravinder Singh Sidhu and others v. State of Punjab and others’ 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 795 to contend that if a subsequent action confers fresh cause of action, principles of res-judicata will not apply. Counsel for the appellant has stated that issuance of a notice of resumption will vest fresh cause of action in the appellant. The crucial issue before the Court was whether the appellant-plaintiff was entitled to allotment or not. Once, in earlier proceedings, which had culminated, it has been decided that the appellant is not entitled to allotment, the consideration whether the resumption can be made is immaterial. Thus, the findings returned by both the courts below that the principles of res-judicata oust the 3 Regular Second Appeal No.2052 of 2009 (O&M) appellant from institution of the suit cannot be set aside and hence, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE September 5, 2011 rps 4