R.S.A.NO.3579 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.NO.3579 of 2009 Date of decision:8th October, 2009 Ranjit Bhandari alias Ranjit Singh ......Appellant Versus The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana and another ......Respondents Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Satinder Khanna, Advocate for the appellant. Rajive Bhalla, J.(Oral) The appellant challenges judgments and decrees dated 22.05.2008 and 29.08.2009, passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ludhiana and the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, dismissing his suit and his appeal. The appellant filed a suit for mandatory injunction to direct the Municipal Corporation to execute and register a sale deed in his favour with respect to the suit land. The appellant alleged that vide allotment letter dated 11.03.1983, the Municipal Corporation, ordered that the land in his unauthorised occupation would be transferred to him, in case he deposited sale price R.S.A.NO.3579 of 2009 2 @Rs.30/- per square yard. The appellant deposited Rs. 3,630/- on 22.03.1983, but the land has not been transferred to the appellant. In response, the respondents alleged that the appellant is an unauthorised occupant of public property and no such letter or receipt of payment is available in the record of the municipal corporation. The trial court dismissed the suit, by holding that in the absence of any proof of the receipt Ex.P-1 and the letter dated 18.03.1983 Ex.P-2, the appellant could not be granted any relief. The suit was also held to be barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the appellant filed an appeal. Vide judgment and decree dated 29.08.2009, the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court. Counsel for the appellant submits that the respondents have not denied his ownership, in paragraph one of the written statement and therefore, the courts below should have decreed the suit. The documents Ex.P-1 and P-2 clearly establish that the land was allotted to the appellant. The appellant's failure to prove the documents Ex.P-1 and P-2, is irrelevant as the respondents have taken a stand that no such letter or receipt is traceable in their office. It is further argued that as the appellant is in possession of the suit property, the suit should have been decreed in view of the receipt Ex.P-1 and the allotment letter R.S.A.NO.3579 of 2009 3 Ex.P-2. Furthermore, the courts below have committed an error in dismissing the suit as barred by limitation. I have heard counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned judgments and decrees, considered the questions of law framed by counsel for the appellant and express my inability to hold that the impugned judgments and decrees suffer from any error that would give rise to a substantial question of law. The appellant is admittedly an unauthorised occupant and has failed to prove the allotment letter Ex.P-2 and the receipt Ex.P-1. It would be necessary to mention here that the record relating to Ex.P-1 and P-2 is not traceable with the Municipal Corproation. In the absence of proof of the authenticity of Ex.P-1 and P-2, the courts below did not commit any error in dismissing the suit and the appeal. As regards the plea that in paragraph one of the written statement, the respondents have admitted the appellant's ownership, suffice is to state that pleadings are to be read as a whole and an accidental slip in the pleadings cannot be considered as an admission. A perusal of the written statement, clearly establishes that the respondents allege that the available record does not disclose any allotment to the appellant or receipt of payment to the Corporation. The alleged allotment letter Ex. P- 2 is dated 11.3.1983, whereas the receipt is dated 22.03.1983. The suit was filed on 29.01.2005, after a delay of 22 years. As a consequence, the courts below rightly dismissed the suit as barred by time. The courts below therefore, rightly dismissed the suit and the appeal. R.S.A.NO.3579 of 2009 4 In view of what has been stated hereinabove, as no substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed . [RAJIVE BHALLA] JUDGE 8th October, 2009 Shivani Kaushik