RSA No.3026 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. RSA No.3026 of 2009 Sultan & Ors. ... Appellant(s) v. Panchayat Samiti, village Kalanaur ... Respondent(s) 2. RSA No.3027 of 2009 Bhan Singh @ Suraj Bhan & Ors. ... Appellant(s) v. Ram Parkash ... Respondent(s) Date of decision: August 23, 2011. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri B.S. Walia and Shri R.K. Sharma, Advocates, for the appellant(s). Shri Ramesh Hooda, Advocate, for the caveator-respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): On January 21, 2010, a Coordinate Bench in RSA No.3026 and 3027 of 2009 had passed the following order:- “These appeals present an interesting conundrum. The dispute is with regard to the land comprised in khewat RSA No.3026 of 2009 -: 2 :- No.165/224 Khatoni no.191, min Rect. And Killa No.215/4 measuring 5 kanals 6 marlas situated in the revenue estate of Kalanaur Kalan, Tehsil and Distt. Rohtak. The appellants in RSA No.3026 of 2009 filed civil suit No.587 of 1994 dated 06.01.1994/07.08.2004 wherein they challenged the eviction order obtained by the Panchayat Samiti Kalanaur against them under Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery), Act, 1972. The suit is alleging that the orders passed by the Collector and the Appellate Authority were illegal and without jurisdiction. The said suit was dismissed by judgment and order dated 27.01.2006. During the pendency of the above mentioned suit, one civil suit No.2171 dated 04.11.2000/07.07.2005 was filed by Ram Parkash (also respondent in RSA No.3027 of 2009) against the appellants praying for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/appellants herein from interfering in his possession over the land in dispute. In this suit, he claimed for possession on the ground that his father has been recorded as owner of the disputed land and after his death, he has become owner in possession. The plea of the appellants was that in fact they were owner in possession of the land since the time of their forefathers; that the Panchayat Samiti Kalanaur had been litigating with them with regard to the said land and had in fact obtained orders for their eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1958; that RSA No.3026 of 2009 -: 3 :- they had challenged the said orders by way of civil suit and all this collusive action shows that the said Ram Parkash was neither owner nor in possession. The said suit was decreed against the appellants by judgment and order dated 05.03.2007. Against the judgment dated 27.01.2006, the appellants filed regular second appeal No.56 dated 11.02.2006/30.05.2008 and against judgment dated 05.03.2007 that they filed regular first appeal No.55 dated 07.04.2007. Both the appeals were dismissed by the same Court on the same date viz 20.05.2009. Against the dismissal of their appeal No.56 (supra) the appellants have preferred RSA No.3026 of 2009 and against the dismissal of appeal No.55 (supra), the appellants have filed RSA No.3027 of 2009. Thus, the position which emerges is that on the one hand Ram Parkash has a decree against the appellants, that he is owner in possession in RSA No.3027 of 2009 and on the other hand the challenge of the appellants to their eviction order under Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 against the Panchayat Samiti Kalanaur Kalan has been rejected whereby it has inferentially been held that the appellants are in unauthorized possession of the land in dispute. Instead of ensuring that an effective decision was rendered regarding the ownership and possession of the said land measuring 5 kanal 6 marlas, the lower appellate court has further confounded the confusion by passing mutually RSA No.3026 of 2009 -: 4 :- inconsistent judgments. There is a rather facile explanation given in ciivil appeal No.55 of 2007 viz that the decision of the present appeal would have no applicability on the decision of the appeal in which Panchayat Samiti Kalanaur Kalan is a party. In my opinion, this is a most inappropriate approach. Learned counsel for the caveator has argued that this is an obvious case where the appellants on the one hand and Shri Ram Parkash on the other hand have colluded to frustrate the order which has been obtained by the Panchayat Samiti. However, considering the fact that in grounds of both the appeals, it is mentioned that both the appeals were heard together, the Panchayat Samiti cannot escape from his responsibility in not insisting that the court should take a unified view on this litigation. Learned counsel for the parties seeks an adjournment to suggest this court what would be proper course of action which would be followed in these cases. Adjourned to 10.02.2010. Let a copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of Court Secretary.” I have heard Counsel for the parties. Counsel for the parties are in agreement that the matter be remanded back to the lower appellate court to decide Civil Appeal No.55 of 2007 and Civil Appeal No.56 of 2008 afresh. However, Shri Hooda has stated that in case the matter is to be remitted to the the lower appellate RSA No.3026 of 2009 -: 5 :- court, it be directed to decide the aforesaid appeals within a specified time. Shri R.K. Sharma, Counsel for the appellants has no objection thereto. Accordingly, the orders passed by the lower appellate court in civil Appeals No.55 of 2007 and 56 of 2008 are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the lower appellate court to decide the appeals afresh, separately but simultaneously within a period of three months. Counsel for the parties undertake that the parties shall appear before the lower appellate court on 19.9.2011. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] August 23, 2011. Judge kadyan