IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. (1) R.S.A. No.4202 of 2002 Faquira. ....... Appellant through Shri V.K.Jindal, Advocate. Versus Managing Committee, Saralia Vaish Hindu Mahajani School (Regd.),Ambala City and others. ...... Respondent No.1 through Shri C.B.Goel, Advocate with Shri Nitin Jain and Shri Manoj Sharma, Advocates. Respondent no.2 represented L.Rs. and other respondents by through Shri R.K.Battas and Shri H. R. Bhardwaj, Advocates. .... (2) C.W.P. No. 11788 of 2003 .... Managing Committee, Saralia Vaish Hindi Mahajani School (Regd.),Ambala City and another. ....... Petitioner through Shri C.B.Goel, Advocate. Versus Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others. ....... Respondent nos. 1 to 5 through Nemo. Respondent no.6 through Shri V.K.Jindal, Advocate. .... R.S.A.No.4202 of 2002 -2- .... (3) Civil Revision No.182 of 2007 .... Managing Committee, Saralia Vaish Hindi Mahajani School (Regd.),Ambala City and others. ....... Petitioners through Shri C.B.Goel, Advocate. Versus Faquria and another. ...... Respondent no.1 through Shri V.K.Jindal, Advocate. Respondent no.2 through Nemo. Date of Decision: 12.5.2009 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 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? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This common judgment will dispose of the above mentioned Regular Second Appeal, Civil Writ Petition and the Civil Revision as the questions of fact and law involved therein are inter-connected. Regular Second Appeal No.4202 of 2002 has been directed against judgments and decrees dated 31.8.1999 and 3.6.2002 passed respectively by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambala (hereinafter referred to as `the trial Court') and the Additional District R.S.A.No.4202 of 2002 -3- .... Judge, Ambala (described hereinafter as `the First Appellate Court') whereby the suit of Managing Committee, Saralia Vaish Hindu Mahajani School (Regd.), Ambala City ( for short, `the School') was decreed and the appeals of Om Parkash (since deceased and represented through his legal representatives) & others (for brevity, `the defendants') and of Faquiria (hereinafter called as `the appellant') were dismissed. C.W.P.No.11788 of 2003 has been preferred by the School against Financial Commissioner, Haryana; Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala; Collector -cum- Deputy Commissioner, Ambala; District Revenue Officer, Ambala; Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Ambala (called hereinafter as `the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 respectively') and the appellant for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing orders Annexures P11, P12 and P13 passed by respondent nos. 1 & 2. A further prayer has been made to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent no. 5 to get the possession of the property in dispute delivered to the School in view of his orders Annexures P1 and P2. Civil Revision No.182 of 2007 has been filed by the School and others for setting aside order dated 29.9.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Ambala and for restoring order dated 20.1.2004 vide which the application for ad interim injunction moved by the appellant in his suit was dismissed. The facts are being extricated from the writ petition. The School is owner of the suit property which was presently in possession of the appellant as tenant. Since the appellant was not paying R.S.A.No.4202 of 2002 -4- .... rent, the School initiated proceedings under Section 14-A (ii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act,1953 (hereinafter referred to as `the 1953 Act') before respondent no.5 for recovery of rent for the period from 1978 to 1983. Originally, Kartara, predecessor-in-interest of the appellant was a tenant on the suit property and the proceedings were started against him and other sub-tenants (against whom a suit for permanent injunction was initiated which is the subject-matter of R.S.A.No.4202 of 2002). Respondent no.5, after following the process of law, ordered eviction of the tenant/ sub-tenants on 21.3.1989 vide Annexure P1 and they were required to vacate the suit property within thirty days. During the pendency of aforesaid proceedings, the School had also filed another petition under Section 14-A(ii) of the 1953 Act against Kartara for recovery of rent for the year from 1983-86, which was also decided on the same day vide order Annexure P2. An appeal was preferred by Kartara against order Annexure P2, but no challenge was made to Annexure P1. That appeal was dismissed by respondent no.3 vide order dated 24.5.1994 (Annexure P3). Since the tenant/ sub-tenants did not vacate the suit property, the School sought to execute the orders Annexures P1 to P3. The warrants of possession were issued and sent to the Kanungo for delivery of possession. As the rent was also not paid, the School had filed a petition on Form-L of the Schedule to the 1953 Act for recovery thereof and that petition was also allowed vide order dated 21.12.1994 passed by respondent no.5 against which the appellant filed an appeal and the appellate authority initially stayed the operation thereof which stay was used to stall the execution proceedings R.S.A.No.4202 of 2002 -5- .... initiated by it. The Kanungo appointed to execute the warrants of possession did not hand over the possession to the School by taking the order of staying the recovery of rent into consideration and on his report, respondent no.5 ordered the execution proceedings to be adjourned sine die. Thereafter, the School filed a revision petition before respondent no.2 impugning the order of respondent no.5 vide which the execution proceedings were adjourned sine die. Respondent no.2 accepted the plea of the School and recommended to respondent no.1 for the acceptance of the revision petition and for directing respondent no.5 to proceed with the execution of the orders dated 21.3.1989. Respondent no.1, vide order dated 29.8.1996 (Annexure P4) accepted the reference and also directed respondent no.2 to get the entire matter enquired into and fix the responsibility of inordinate delay caused in the execution of orders dated 21.3.1989. The relevant extract of Annexure P4 is reproduced below:- “It is unfortunate that the order dt. 21.3.1989 could not be executed upto the end of the year 1994 and the execution was adjourned sine die the moment the stay was granted on the execution of the order dated 22.12.1994. As stated earlier, the proceedings under Section 14-A(ii) and 14-A(i) are entirely different and there is no inconsistency between the two clauses, the proceedings of execution of one order could not be adjourned on account of the stay granted in the other case. Hence, I accept the reference made by the Commissioner, Ambala Division and set aside the order dated 13.3.1995 R.S.A.No.4202 of 2002 -6- .... passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Assistant Collector is directed to proceed with the execution of the order dt. 21.3.1989. I would also like the Commissioner, Ambala Division to get this entire matter enquired into and fix the responsibility of inordinate delay caused in execution of the order dt.21.3.1989.” Thereafter, the School approached respondent no.5 for getting the possession delivered. The appellant, who is the son of Kartara, in order to forestall the delivery of possession, filed objections which were dismissed by respondent no.5 vide order dated 11.6.1997. An appeal against the said order was filed by the appellant which was dismissed by respondent no.3 vide order dated 27.4.2000 (Annexure P5). During this interregnum, the appeal which was filed by the appellant against order dated 22.12.1994 which pertained to the proceedings initiated on Form-L for recovery of rent was decided and the matter was remanded back to respondent no.5 for decision afresh. The School, in turn, decided to withdraw the petition on Form-L in view of order, Annexure P4 which was passed by respondent no.1. It persisted with its efforts to obtain the possession of the suit property, but somehow the order remained unexecuted and the possession continued with the appellant and others. The School then approached respondent no.1 with all the details and pointed out the harassment which it was facing due to the reason that the legitimate orders of various authorities including the one passed by him were not being implemented. Vide order dated 2.7.2001 (Annexure P6), respondent R.S.A.No.4202 of 2002 -7- .... no.1 directed respondent no.2 to take appropriate steps on application dated 11.9.1995 regarding the execution proceedings preferred by the School. Order, Annexure P4, was specifically noticed in Annexure P6. Pursuant to the efforts of the School to get the possession of the suit property, the warrants of possession were issued, but again objections were filed by the defendants, who claimed to be in possession thereof. Those objections were dismissed by respondent no.5 vide order dated 25.7.2002 (Annexure P7). The revision petition filed by the defendants against Annexure P7 was dismissed by respondent no.4 vide order dated 3.10.2002 (Annexure P8). In the meanwhile, the appellant, as also the defendants attempted to raise construction and to change the nature of the suit property and also to remove the trees, as a result of which Civil Suit No.304 of 8.10.1988/17.4.1998 was filed by the School seeking permanent injunction against them. That suit was decreed by the trial Court and the appeals preferred by the appellant and the defendants were dismissed. The judgments and decrees are the subject-matter of R.S.A.No.4202 of 2002. When all these proceedings were going on, the appellant and his father-Kartara had filed various suits seeking permanent injunction against the School to restrain it from interfering in their possession. The following are the particulars of civil suits which were filed at different points of time and were either got dismissed as withdrawn or not pursued to their logical end:- 1. Civil Suit No.297 of 15.6.1989 – “Kartara Versus Managing R.S.A.No.4202 of 2002 -8- .... Committee .....” This suit was dismissed on 18.9.1990 as the counsel for the plaintiff pleaded no instructions. 2. Civil Suit No.1799 of 4.11.1992 - “Kartara Versus Sita Ram and others”. This suit was dismissed under Order 9 Rule 8 C.P.C. 3. Civil Suit No. 76 of 1995-96- “Kartara (deceased) represented by Faqir Chand Versus Managing Committee....” This suit was dismissed on 31.7.1999 again under Order 9 Rule 8 C.P.C. The appellant then, on 3.9.2002, filed simultaneously two revision petitions, one challenging order Annexure P1 and the other to challenge orders Annexures P2 and P3. Respondent no.2, after hearing the counsel for the parties, recommended to respondent no.1 for acceptance of these petitions vide orders dated 10.1.2003 (Annexures P11 and P12). The relevant extract of Annexure P11 is reproduced below:- “Both the ld. Counsels for the parties admit that the land in question falls within the Municipal limits of Ambala City, therefore, the core issue in the present case is whether the revenue officer under the provisions of Punjab Security of Land Tenures act can pass an order of ejectment of the land of which substantial portion in the revenue record is recorded as “Gair Mumkin Makan” meaning thereby that the land in question is not entirely used for the agriculture purpose. On the contrary, the same is covered by the constructed sites. In order R.S.A.No.4202 of 2002 -9- .... to examine this issue, I have also gone through the provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act,1973 in which section 2(a) defines about building which includes land, godowns, out-houses, gardens, lawns, wells or tank appurtenant to such building such building comes within the definition of the building and here in the present case, according to jamabandi for the year 1973-74 the substantial part of the land is recorded as Gair Mumkin Makan. Thus, in my view where a number of houses are on the land then certainly the revenue officer has no jurisdiction to pass an order of ejectment from such land where the residential houses are recorded in jamabandi. The said sites come within the definition of building and the provisions of Urban Rent Act will only be applicable in the matter of eviction of tenant.” As is evident from the above reproduced portion of the order, Annexure P11, respondent no.2 recommended the acceptance of revision petitions essentially pointing out that the question of jurisdiction of the revenue officer had to be determined. Thereupon, respondent no.1 vide order dated 12.5.2003 (Annexure P13) accepted the revision petitions and remanded the matter back for detailed examination. The relevant extract of Annexure P13 is reproduced below:- “I have heard the Ld. Counsels on both sides and gone through the Record. Some of the major flaws in the present R.S.A.No.4202 of 2002 -10- .... proceedings are:- 1. Whether a landowner can file proceedings under 14 A(i) and (ii) (sic. Section) simultaneously. The reply by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents is not satisfactory and there is need for deeper examination of law. 2. Whether the respondents are responsible for converting 25 kanals of disputed land in Gair Mumkin land and if they are not responsible then why the rent have (sic. has) been claimed qua that land which is not admissible as per PLJ 1982 Page 266. 3. What is truth of some alleged payments which have been made to Sita Ram who was recorded in the revenue record as President of the Respondent-Society for some years. It was the duty of the petitioners to prove the payment to Sita Ram and also it was the duty of the respondent-Society to have notified in time to the petitioners that rent should be remitted to Society through Rattan Lal after Sita Ram no more remained the President. Therefore, the Revision recommended by Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala is accepted to the extent that these three issues need thorough examination. Therefore, the case is remanded to ACIIG, Ambala, for detailed examination of the issues referred to above and in case the petitioners are able to earn the occupancy rights before the final decision of R.S.A.No.4202 of 2002 -11- .... this case by ACIIG, the decision of ACIIG, under Section 8 of the Pb. Tenancy Act should be considered as the important evidence in issue by the ACIIG, Ambala.” It is pertinent to mention here that after the aforementioned order was passed by respondent no.1, the appellant filed civil suit no.360 of 13.11.2003 against the School and others for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit property in which an application for ad interim stay was moved. That application was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala vide order dated 20.1.2004, but the appeal against that order was accepted by the Additional District Judge ( Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Ambala vide his order dated 29.9.2006, which has given rise to Civil Revision No.182 of 2007. It is with the aforesaid backdrop of facts that the Regular Second Appeal, Civil Writ Petition and the Civil Revision have come up for hearing. It is evident from the judgments under challenge in the Regular Second Appeal that a categoric finding of ownership of the School over the suit property was recorded by the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court on the basis of the revenue record and the plea of the appellant and the defendants regarding their ownership by way of adverse possession was negatived. They were, thus, restrained from raising any construction over the suit property. Here, it needs to be mentioned that R.S.A.No.3780 of 2002 R.S.A.No.4202 of 2002 -12- .... which was filed by the defendants against the judgments and decrees which are under challenge in R.S.A.No.4202 of 2002 as well, has been decided separately on the basis of the statement which was made by the learned counsel for the defendants, who has stated that the dispute pertained only to khasra no.498 regarding which they have no concern and they have no objection if the decrees in question are executed qua them with reference to the said khasra number. The trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, had framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is a registered society?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land detailed and described in para 2 of plaint?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff society is entitled for relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP 4. Whether the defendant no.4 is a tenant over the suit property?OPP 5. Whether the present suit is not maintainable?OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 7. Whether the present suit is bad for misjoinder as well as nonjoinder of necessary parties?OPD 8. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct?OPD 9. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the present R.S.A.No.4202 of 2002 -13- .... suit?OPD 10.Whether the defendant no.1 has become owner in possession of the suit property by way of adverse possession?OPD 11. Whether the defendants have disobeyed an interim dated 8.10.88, if so to what effect?OPD 12. Relief. As mentioned above, the trial Court, on the basis of evidence on record, concluded that the School was the owner of the suit property and that Kartara was merely a tenant and Kashmiri Lal was a sub-tenant under him. The suit was accordingly decreed for permanent injunction against Kartara and Kashmiri Lal (through his legal heirs). In appeals, the findings of the trial Court were affirmed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record. It is the primary contention of the learned counsel for the School that respondent no.2 had no jurisdiction to pass orders Annexures P11 and P12 on the basis of which respondent no.1 had passed order Annexure P13. It was contended that the appellant did not challenge orders Annexures P1, P2 and P3 within the period of limitation and the challenge was made almost fourteen years thereafter. He submitted that orders Annexures P1 to P3 had attained finality and when revision petitions were filed by the appellant, no application for condonation of delay was filed and respondent no.2 was, therefore, precluded from entering upon the R.S.A.No.4202 of 2002 -14- .... proceedings at such a belated stage. It was further submitted that the order, Annexure P4 was passed by respondent no.1 expressing his annoyance at the non-execution of the legitimate order passed by respondent no.5 and the same very officer accepted the recommendations made by respondent no.2, which obviously could not have been done. Learned counsel for the School argued that despite the valid orders passed by the revenue authorities which had attained finality, the execution proceedings were sought to be frustrated by the appellant and his predecessor-in-interest by filing various suits. He further argued that the objections filed by the appellant and the defendants were dismissed and yet, the possession of the suit property was not handed over to the School. He, therefore, prayed that the orders impugned in the writ petition may be quashed and the orders of ejectment may be got implemented. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the School that the Regular Second Appeal deserves to be dismissed as the Courts below have rightly held the School to be the owner of the suit property on the basis of the revenue record and, therefore, the findings recorded in the judgments impugned therein may be upheld. In so far as the revision petition is concerned, learned counsel for the School urged that since the School is owner of the suit property, temporary injunction could not be granted to the respondent and, therefore, the order impugned therein is liable to be quashed. To support his contentions/ submissions/ arguments, learned counsel for the School placed reliance on Loku Ram Versus State of R.S.A.No.4202 of 2002 -15- .... Haryana and others, 1999(1) P.L.J. 1 (S.C.); Punjab Wakf Board Versus The Financial Commissioner and others, 1999(2) P.L.J. 1 (P& H) (D.B.); Ragho Singh Versus Mohan Singh and others, 2002(2) P.L.J. 28 (S.C.); Karam Chand Versus Union of India and others, 2002(1) P.L.J. 284 (S.C.); State of Himachal Pradesh and others Versus Rajkumar Brijender Singh and others, 2005(1) H.R.R. 339 (S.C.) and Dharam Singh (deceased) L.Rs. And others Versus Bhagwan Singh and others, 2005(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 439 (P&H) (S.B.). On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the order of respondent no.1 was perfectly valid and since orders Annexures P1 to P3 were without jurisdiction, the same necessarily had to be set aside which has rightly been done. He further contended that the revision petitions filed by the appellant could not have been dismissed on the ground of limitation as an illegal order can be challenged at any time. In addition to the above contentions, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the findings recorded by the Courts below in the judgments and decrees impugned in the Regular Second Appeal are erroneous and are liable to be set aside as he had become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession. Learned counsel for the appellant also urged on the similar lines while supporting the order which has been impugned in the Civil Revision. To support his contentions/ submissions, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on Ajmer Singh and others Versus State of R.S.A.No.4202 of 2002 -16- .... Haryana, 1990 P.L.J. 116 (S.C.); Rakesh Wadhawan & Ors. Versus M/S Jagdamba Industrial Corporation & Ors., 2002(3) All India Land Laws Reporter 12 (S.C.); Ved Parkash and another Versus Mange Ram and others, 1982 P.L.J. 266 (P&H) (S.B.); Saudagar Ram Versus The Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others, 1967 P.L.J. 26 (Punjab) (S.B.); Gurbux Singh Versus The State of Punjab and others, 1976 P.L.J. (P&H) 379 (S.B.); Dhani Ram (Died) through L.Rs. Versus Madan Lal, 2003(1) R.C.R. 729 (P&H) (S.B.); Rafique Bibi (D) by L.Rs. & Ors. Versus Sayed Waliuddin (D) by L.Rs. & Ors., 2003(3) Civil Court Cases 710 (S.C.); Gurmej Singh and others Versus The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh and others, 1980 P.L.J. 603 (P&H) (F.B.); The State of Haryana and others Versus The Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd. and another, AIR 1977 S.C. 781; Pal Singh & Ors. Versus Uma Mehta & Ors., 1997 (Suppl.) Civil Court Cases 140 (P&H); Guru Amarjit Singh Versus Rattan Chand and others, AIR 1994 S.C. 227; Jarnail Singh & Anr. Versus Ram Singh, 2000(1) Civil Court Cases 570 (P&H); Profulla Chorone Requitte and others Versus Satya Choron Requitte, AIR 1979 S.C. 1682; M/S New Bharat Chemical Industry Versus Om Parkash, 1997(2) Civil Court Cases 245 (P&H); P.Periasami (Dead) by L.Rs. Versus P.Periathambi and others, (1995) 6 S.C.C. 523; Mangal Ram Versus Charanu, 1993 Civil Court Cases 723 (P&H) and Bondar Singh & Ors. Versus Nihal Singh, 2003(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 222 (S.C.). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. R.S.A.No.4202 of 2002 -17- .... There is no quarrel with the proposition of law as laid down in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, but it is also a settled principle of law that even though no statutory period for initiating a particular proceeding is provided, yet, the same has to be initiated within a reasonable time and in this case, the period of seven years after which orders Annexures P1 to P3 were challenged, cannot be treated as reasonable period so as to warrant any indulgence. The facts of the instant case reveal the subversion of system, the manifestation of which are the orders, Annexure P11 to P13, which have frustrated the legitimate and valid orders of the competent authorities resulting in deprivation of possessory rights to a rightful owner and claimant. As seen above, the School had initiated proceedings under the provisions of the 1953 Act for ejectment of Kartara and other sub-tenants on account of non-payment of rent for two different spells, which were answered in its favour vide orders dated 21.3.1989, Annexures P1 and P2. The appeal filed against order Annexure P2 was dismissed vide order Annexure P3. Thereafter, the execution of those orders was stalled on one pretext or the other. It has not been shown that at any point of time, the appellant or the defendants were inclined to pay the rent. In any eventuality, orders Annexures P1 to P3 attained finality as no further proceedings were taken against them. After 1994 also, no