R.S.A.No. 1453 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1453 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.3.2011 Gurnam Singh ......Appellant Versus Municipal Council, Dharamkot and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.S.P.Jain, Sr.Advocate, Mr.Dheeraj Jain, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that he had become owner in possession of the property in dispute. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that he had become the owner of the suit property. As per the revenue record i.e. jamabandi for the year 1939-40, the land measuring 2 kanals 12 marlas was shown to be owned by shamlat deh. However, the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur vide order dated 4.1.1976 sanctioned the mutation No.20118 in favour of the defendant regarding ownership of the suit property. The said order was illegal, R.S.A.No. 1453 of 2010 (O&M) 2 null and void. The suit property measuring 11 marlas was gifted by Raghbir Singh, Mastan Singh, Balbir Singh, Jagir Singh, Balwant Singh and Jeet Singh to Mehanga Ram due to the services rendered by him. The said gift deed was scribed by Ram Parkash, Document Writer on 8.11.1976. The possession of the suit property was handed over by Raghbir Singh etc. to the said Mehanga Ram. Mehanga Ram died about 10 years ago and his son Gurnam Singh was in possession of the suit property since then. Prior to the execution of the gift deed, Raghbir Singh etc. and their ancestors were in possession of the suit property for the last more than 50 years and since then the defendants never remained in possession of the suit property. Municipal Committee had filed a suit under Section 4 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery), Act, 1973 and the same was allowed by the Collector, Ferozepur. An appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur vide order dated 13.5.1999. The defendants, in their written statement, averred that the Municipal Committee had become owner of the suit property and mutation had been sanctioned in favour of defendant No.1. on 2.7.1981. As per notification dated 4.1.1976 entire shamlat deh land, Nazool land and rehabilitation land stood transferred in the name of Municipal Committees/ Notified Area Committees. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff has become owner of house and shop measuring 11 marlas vide gift deed dated 8.11.1976 executed by Raghbir Singh, Mastan Singh R.S.A.No. 1453 of 2010 (O&M) 3 sons of Mahant Charan Singh? OPP. 2. Whether the order dated 23.9.1998 passed by Sh.G.K.Singh, Deputy Director, Local Government, Ferozepur exercising the powers of Collector, is null and void and is liable to be set aside being wrong and illegal? OPP 3. Whether the order dated 13.5.1999 passed by Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur and resolution dated 7.10.1996 passed by the defendant and the order dated 4.1.1976 in respect of mutation No.20118 are illegal, null and void and without jurisdiction and are liable to be set aside ? OPP 4. Whether the record of rights since 1976 is liable to be corrected by deleting the name of defendants ? OPP 5. Whether the plaintiff has become owner of the shop and house in question being khasra No.620 min shown by words ABCD in the site plan by way of adverse possession? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with possession or from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property ? OPD 7. Whether this Court has got no jurisdiction to try the suit as per provision of Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 and Punjab Municipal Act? OPD 8. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD R.S.A.No. 1453 of 2010 (O&M) 4 9. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit / OPD 10. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for non service of notice as per Municipal Act? OPD 11. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD 12 Relief.” The Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) vide judgment and decree dated 24.12.2008 partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff and declared the plaintiff to be owner in possession of the house measuring 11 marlas bearing khasra No.620 min. The order passed by the Deputy Director, Local Government, Ferozepur dated 23.9.1998 and order dated 13.5.1999 passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur were declared null and void. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by the Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 20.10.2009 and consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing learned senior counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Admittedly, as per the jamabandi for the year 1939-40, old khasra No.1629 was recorded as shamlat deh. Since the land was recorded as shamlat deh, it vested in the gram panchayat. Thereafter, the suit land was transferred in favour of the Municipal Council. The Municipal Council had adopted the procedure as per law and had moved an application for ejectment of the plaintiff. The R.S.A.No. 1453 of 2010 (O&M) 5 plaintiff had also earlier approached this Court alleging that he was ready to purchase the suit land and this Court had granted permission to the plaintiff to apply to the appropriate authority for purchase of the land. Thus, in these circumstances, the learned Additional District Judge rightly held that the plaintiff had himself admitted the ownership of the defendants qua the suit property. Since the defendants were taking recourse to law, the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable. 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 March 25, 2011 anita