R.S.A.No. 4378 of 2008(O&M) {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 4378 of 2008(O&M) Date of Decision:September 18, 2009 Agya Kaur ---Appellant versus State of Haryana and others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.A.S.Tewatia, Advocate, for the appellant. *** SABINA, J. Plaintiff – Agya Kaur had filed a suit for declaration. Civil Judge ( Sr. Division), Panchkula vide judgment and decree dated 5.6.2007 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by District Judge, Panchkula vide judgment and decree dated 4.6.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. Brief facts of the case as noticed by learned District Judge in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment read as under:- “2. A suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for R.S.A.No. 4378 of 2008(O&M) {2} a decree for declaration to the effect that she and defendants nos. 3 to 5 were owners and in possession of land bearing Khewat/khatauni No. 206 min/270, Khasra No. 109, @B-$B, 330/110/2 measuring 11B-19B, 331/110 measuring 4B-4B, Qittas 3 measuring 18B-7B, and the construction raised thereon situated in village, Abdullapur, H.B. 115, tehsil Kalka, District Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as suit property). The plaintiff has also prayed for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants No. 1 & 2 from interfering in her peaceful possession and that of the defendants No. 3 to 5 in the suit property in any manners and also from demolishing any portion of the building existing over the suit land. It has been alleged by the plaintiff that provisionally, the suit property was found and possessed by her husband Bawa Bhagat Singh. After his death on 12.11.1987, the same was inherited by her and since then, she has been in possession of the same. The defendant No. 3 has constructed a hotel and restaurant under the name and style of hotel Hillsway on a part of the suit property. A banquet Hall has also been constructed on the same. The same existed over the suit land for the last more than 12 years. Eucalyptus trees which were planted by the plaintiff existed on the suit property for the more than 20 years. The possession of the plaintiff and the defendants No. 3 to 5 over the suit land was continuous and uninterrupted. In the year 1999. The defendants No. 1 & 2 without notice to the plaintiff got mutation No. 1153 entered in favour of State Govt. R.S.A.No. 4378 of 2008(O&M) {3} by alleging that the same was acquired bys the Govt. in the year 1962 for construction of forest training school at Pinjore and village Abdullapur. The plaintiff was not aware whether any compensation had been paid to her husband or not Mutation No. 1153 was illegal, null and void liable to be set aside. The plaintiff has also challenged the above said notification and mutation no. 1153 in Civil Writ Petition No. 8286/2000 but the same was withdrawn by the plaintiff with liberty to approach the court as the old revenue record was not available. Thereafter writ petition No. 9894/2001 was again filed in the Hon’ble High Court challenging the said notification and award but the same was also withdrawn by the plaintiff with liberty to file a civil suit. Neither the plaintiff nor her husband ever paid any rent or batai to the defendants No. 1 & 2. The defendants No. 1 & 2 had never claimed any rent or batai from the plaintiff. After the withdrawal of writ petition, the defendants No. 1 & 2 were threatening to demolish the building existing over the suit and interfere in the possession of the plaintiff on the same, hence the suit. 3. The suit was contested by defendants No. 1 & 2. It was pleaded by the defendants No. 1 & 2 that notifications under sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued by Govt. of Haryana to acquire land measuring 195 Bighas and 6 Biswas of village Pinjore and Abdullapur, tehsil Kalka for public purpose i.e. for construction of forest Training school at Pinjore. At that time it was stated by the owners of land they R.S.A.No. 4378 of 2008(O&M) {4} were having no objection regarding acquisition of the land. However, it was prayed by them that higher compensation may be paid to them. All these facts were mentioned in the award statement. It has also been pleaded by the defendants No. 1 & 2 that Rs. 1114.14 regarding the and of village Abdullapur and Rs. 24594.7 regarding the land of village Pinjore were fixed as compensation. The above said amounts were disbursed to the owners of the land including the husband of the plaintiff. The owners of the land had not collected their money. The amount of Rs. 2863.07 was deposited in the treasury vide R.O. No. 3 dated 8.4.1963. The land of the plaintiff was legally acquired by the Forest Department for which compensation has already been awarded to the owners. After the acquisition of the suit land mutation could not be entered and sanctioned at that time. This process was initiated later on Mutation No. 1153 was sanctioned vide order dated 27.1.1999 in favour of defendants No. 1 & 2. It has also been pleaded that the plaintiff had opened hotel and restaurant over the suit land which in physical possession of the Forest Department. The plaintiff and her sons have violated the order dated 20.12.2002 of the Hon’ble High Court by constructing hotel and a banquet hall over the suit land. The plaintiff in connivance with Halqa Patwari and defendants No. 3 to 5 have got their names entered in Khasra and Girdawari column of cultivating illegally and unlawfully in order to grab the suit property. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed R.S.A.No. 4378 of 2008(O&M) {5} by the learned trial court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff and defendants No. 3 to 5 are the owners and in possession of the suit land, as detailed in the head note of the plaint? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction, as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the suit land has been acquired by the State of Haryana? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 5. Relief After hearing learned counsel for the appellant I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that she along with defendants No. 3 to 5 were owners in possession of the suit land. Admittedly, plaintiff had filed a civil revision in this Court challenging the order whereby interim injunction was not granted to the plaintiff. In the said petition following order, as reproduced in the judgment of learned District Judge in para 12 of its judgment was passed:- “Indisputably, the suit land along with some other land was acquired by the State Government vide notification dated 22.8.1960, compensation in lieu of the land acquired had also been paid to Bawa Bhagat Singh deceased, husband of the petitioner. After date of the award and payment of compensation to the husband of the petitioner, the land stood vested in the State Government. Ample proof with regard to R.S.A.No. 4378 of 2008(O&M) {6} the payment of compensation to Bawa Bhagat Singh, husband of the petitioner, is available on the record. Thus, there prima facie evidence on the file to prove that the property was duly acquired in the year 1960. The facts of the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not relevant to the facts appearing in the present case. In the present case the land was acquired and compensation had been paid to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner.” In the above said judgment, it was also observed by the Hon’ble High Court as under:- “Still further, it has been brought on record by the contesting defendants that the plaintiff was restrained by this Court vide order dated 20.11.2002, passed in C.W.P.No. 9894 of 2001 from raising any kind of construction on the suit land. It has been proved on record by the defendants that some kind of construction is going on the spot.” It has further been observed in the judgment that the S.L.P. No. 336 of 2004 filed by the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 8.3.2004. Thus, the position that emerges is that the suit land in question was acquired by the State vide notification dated 22.8.1960. Bawa Bhagat Singh deceased, husband of the petitioner had received compensation in lieu of his acquired land. In this regard ample proof was placed on record before this Court at the time of decision of the civil revision. It has been observed by the learned District Judge in the judgment that compensation in terms of the award was disbursed to the land R.S.A.No. 4378 of 2008(O&M) {7} owners, however, the revenue record was not updated by the revenue authorities. Mutation No. 1153 Ex. P-2 was sanctioned in the name of Haryana Government after the passing of the award dated 26.11.1962 by Land Acquisition Collector. In these circumstances, both the courts below have rightly held that the plaintiff could not be said to be owner in possession of the property in dispute as the and in question had been acquired by the State and compensation qua the same had been disbursed to the husband of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE September 18, 2009 PARAMJIT