RSA No.597 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 597 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 01.04.2011 Devender Singh .....Appellant Versus Haryana State and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Arvind Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Deepak Jindal,Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration challenging the order whereby his residence certificate was cancelled. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that Krishanjit, brother of the plaintiff was a permanent lessee for 99 years with regard to the land measuring 6 kanals 15 marlas situated in village Neoli Kalan. On 7.2.2003, he had transferred the lease hold rights in favour of the plaintiff qua the suit land. Plaintiff shifted from Hisar to Neoli Kalan for better management of the suit land. Indian Oil Corporation gave an advertisement in the press regarding appointment of Operator of Kisan Service Centre including Neoli Kalan on 5.5.2005. Plaintiff being eligible applied for the same. Plaintiff sought residence RSA No.597 of 2009 (O&M) 2 certificate on 9.5.2005 from Tehsildar Hisar and the said certificate was issued to the plaintiff on 26.5.2005. A complaint was made by an unsuccessful applicant against the plaintiff and,thereafter, the residence certificate of the plaintiff was cancelled vide order dated 9.12.2005 by Tehsildar, Hisar on the recommendation of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) of Hisar vide order dated 7.12.2005. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff challenging the said order of cancellation of residence certificate. Defendants, in their written statement, denied the contentions in the plaint. It was averred that the plaintiff had no residence in the village Neoli Kalan. On 31.10.2005, an application was received and after due inquiry, it was found that the residence certificate of the plaintiff was liable to be cancelled as he was not resident of village Neoli Kalan. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether the order dated 7.12.2005 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Hisar vide which he directed the Tehsildar Hisar to cancel the residence certificate no.5293 dated 25.5.05 and that the inquiry report dated 2.12.2005 submitted by SDO (civil) Hisar whereby he has cancelled the residence certificate no. 5293 dated 26.5.2005 issued by Tehsildar, Hisar to the plaintiff is null and void ab initio without jurisdiction, mala fide and against the mandatory instructions/guidelines on the grounds as detailed in the headnote of the plaint?OPP 2.If so, whether the defendants are liable to be restrained RSA No.597 of 2009 (O&M) 3 from taking any action against the plaintiff on the basis of enquiry report dated 2.12.2005 submitted by SDO (civil) Hisar, order dated 7.12.2005, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hisar as well as order dated 9.12.2005 passed by Tehsildar, Hisar on the grounds as detailed in the head note of the plaint?OPP 3.Wheher the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 4.Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 5.Whether civil court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit?OPD 6.Whether plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present suit?OPD 7.Whether the suit is bad for want of proper verification of the plaint?OPD 8.Whether the plaintiff has not come in the court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts from the Court?OPD 9.Relief” Vide judgment and decree dated 12.3.2008, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants preferred an appeal. Vide judgment and decree dated 8.1.2009, the said appeal was allowed by the District Judge. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. Hence,the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the RSA No.597 of 2009 (O&M) 4 opinion that the present appeal deserves dismissal. Admittedly, plaintiff contested the election of Panchayat of village Dhobi in the year 2005. As per Exhibit P29, the eligibility condition for appointment of Operator of Kisan Service Centre was that the person should be resident of concerned Village/Block (in case the resident of the village was not found suitable than the resident of other village from the Block would be considered). The applicant was required to attach the residence proof issued by the competent Government Officer. Thus, in order to be eligible to apply for appointment of Operator of Kisan Service Centre, the applicant was required to be the resident of the concerned village or block. Plaintiff had sought appointment of Operator of Kisan Service Centre at village Neoli Kalan. Thus, the plaintiff was required to be the resident of village Neoli Kalan or Block. Plaintiff had moved an application to the Tehsildar, Hisar, Exhibit P5 stating therein that he was permanent resident of village Neoli Kalan and was resident of Haryana State for the last 15 years. Faqir Chand, Lambardar made an endorsement to the effect that he knew the plaintiff and he was resident of village Neoli Kalan for the last 18 years. A report was also made by the Patwari relying on the endorsement made by the Lambardar of village Neoli Kalan. Thereafter, the residence certificate was issued to the plaintiff by the Tehsildar. The said certificate is Exhibit P8 and as per the same, plaintiff was certified to be resident of village Neoli Kalan. Thereafter, a complaint, Exhibit P1, was made by Faqir Chand, Tehsildar, Hisar stating therein that the plaintiff was not resident of village Neoli Kalan and belonged to village Dhobi. It was also stated therein that the plaintiff had RSA No.597 of 2009 (O&M) 5 contested the election for Sarpanch of village Dhobi in April 2005. On verification of the said application, it was found that the plaintiff was not resident of village Neoli Kalan. Although the plaintiff is resident of Haryana but he had got a wrong residence certificate issued from Tehsildar Hisar by stating wrong facts. In these circumstances, the First Appellate Court had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge April 01,2011 arya