R.S.A.No. 1505 of 2005 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1505 of 2005 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.1.2011 Jatan Singh and others ......Appellants Versus Ram Kumar Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.N.S.Shekhawat Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Vipin Yadav, Advocate for respondents. **** SABINA, J. The case of the plaintiff-respondent No.1, in brief, was that the land in dispute was allotted to the plaintiff vide order dated 27.7.1967 passed by Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana, Gurgaon. The land in question was allotted to the plaintiff after withdrawing the land belonging to defendants No. 1 to 3. However, the order was not implemented in the revenue record, R.S.A.No. 1505 of 2005 (O&M) 2 whereas, the plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit land. Hence, the suit for declaration and consequential relief of possession was filed by the plaintiff. Defendants No.1 to 4 in their written statement averred that the order passed by the Director Consolidation was not binding on the defendants. The same had never been implemented. Plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner and possession of the suit property as alleged in paragraphs No.1 and 2 of the plaint? OPP. 2. Whether the order of Director, Consolidation of Holdings is illegal and not binding upon the defendants OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from bringing the present suit? OPD 4.Whether the suit is within limitation ? OPP 5. Whether the suit is false and frivolous and contesting defendants are entitled for compensatory costs ? OPD 6. Relief. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 27.7.1989. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by the District Judge, Narnaul vide judgment and decree dated 22.12.2004. Hence, R.S.A.No. 1505 of 2005 (O&M) 3 the present appeal by defendants No.1 to 3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. The most crucial document in the present case is order dated 27.7.1967 Ex.P-4 passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana, Gurgaon. A perusal of the said order reveals that vide said order, plaintiff was allotted suit land bearing khasra number 90/1(2-17), 9/1 (2-7) and 10/1(2-2) total land measuring 7 kanals 6 marlas. Thus, the plaintiff became owner of the suit property in view of the order Ex.P-4. Admittedly, the said order has not been challenged by anybody and had, thus, gained finality. On an application moved by Ram Kumar, order dated 18.2.1975 Ex.P-5 was passed by Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana, Faridabad that the order dated 27.7.1967 be implemented. In these circumstances, basing reliance on the order Ex.P-4, learned District Judge rightly held that the suit of the plaintiff was liable to be decreed. 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 January 19, 2011 anita