RSA No.455 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.1167-C of 2009 & RSA No.455 of 2009 Decided on :20.01.2010 Krishan @ Kishan ... Appellant versus The State of Haryana & another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. L.N.Verma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. K.C.Bhatia, Addl. AG, Haryana. **** 1.Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant restraining the respondents No.1 & 2 from interfering in the ownership and possession of the appellant. Brief facts of the case are that the father of appellant was a big landowner. Originally when his surplus area case was taken up, no separate unit was permitted for the appellant's son/s. Apart from the appellant, there was another son Bhag Chand who was independently holding land within permissible area and living separately from his father. Against the order of declaration of surplus area of the father of the appellant, various appeals and revisions were filed. At one stage, the father of the appellant was RSA No.455 of 2009 -2- given a separate unit on the name of his other son – Bhag Chand vide order dated 27.01.1984. An appeal against that order was dismissed by the Collector . When that order was challenged by a revision petition, Commissioner, Hisar Division vide order dated 15.11.1985 held that the separate unit allowed to the father of the appellant was not related to Bhag Chand but was related to the appellant. This order was challenged by Bhag Chand by way of civil suit No.1065-C of 1986 on the ground that the land which had been allowed on his name could not be given to the appellant. The appellant was a party in that suit. The said suit was ultimately decreed. Now the case of the appellant is that by the order of the Commissioner, he had become owner of one separate unit and that from this separate unit he could not be dispossessed. Both the courts below after considering the conduct of the appellant in the case of Bhag Chand declined to give any relief to him. Following questions have been proposed: i) Whether the prescribed authority had the option to allow one separate unit to Chuni Lal for either of his two sons without examining as to which of the two actually constituted a separate unit in terms of Section 3(q) of the Act? ii) Whether the person not a party to an order can challenge the same by way of appeal or revision? iii) Whether to a person not a party to an order, the only course open is to approach the civil court for the redressal of his grievance? iv) Whether a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter RSA No.455 of 2009 -3- is barred by Section 26 of the Act? v) Whether a suit for permanent injunction always lies in the civil court? vi) Whether the court having no jurisdiction to entertain and try a suit, can decide the same on merits? vii) Whether the judgment passed by the court having no jurisdiction to try and decide the suit, would be a nullity? viii) Whether the concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below making random observations and without proper appreciation of the material on record and the real matter in controversy enjoy the sanctity of such concurrent findings as may be immune to challenge and interference in the Second Appeal? As regards questions No.(i) & (viii) which are the main questions on merits, suffice it to say that having admitted Bhag Chand's claim and his suit, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant to raise the present questions and to argue that one unit could not be given to his brother. It was open to the appellant to take this stand in his brother's suit. Once these questions are held against the appellant, questions No.(ii) to (vii) recede to the background and do not require any adjudication. Thus, holding the proposed questions against the appellant, this appeal and application for stay are dismissed. January 20, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE