R.S.A. No. 4100 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 4100 of 2007 Date of Decision : 19.01.2009 Ram Parkash Chawla ....Appellant Versus Tehsildar Sales, Rehabilitation Department, Gurgaon & others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction to contend that the auction dated 15.9.1994 confirmed on 27.10.1994 be declared as null and void, without jurisdiction and the appellant be declared the sole owner of the suit property and the respondents be restrained from interfering in his possession. The appellant alleged that he was owner in possession of a house consisting of rooms and open chowk having a boundary wall shown with letters ABCD and comprised in Khewat No.706, Khata No.750, Rect. No.71, Killa No.27(1-8), 28(1-3), total measuring 2 Kanals 11 Marlas, situated in village Gairatpur Bas, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. It is alleged by him that the property had been allotted to his father Jiwan Dass at the time of partition of the country R.S.A. No. 4100 of 2007 -2- and he continued in possession after his father constructed a house thereon. It was further alleged that on 15.9.1994, the respondents had put the land/house to auction and the property has now been allotted to one Azad Singh. The said auction was confirmed on 27.10.1994. He also pleaded that he was in possession of the suit property and the respondents had threatened him to take forcible possession of the same. The respondents contested the suit and contended that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed when the remedy was available under the Special Acts/Rules under which the allotment had been made. It was contended that according to the jamabandi for the years 1988-89, the land comprised in Rect.No.71, Killa Nos.27(1-8) and 28(1-3) total measuring 2 Kanals 11 Marlas situated in village Gairatpur Bas is owned and possessed by Central Government and the appellant has encroached upon some area unauthorisedly and therefore he was liable to be ejected. It was denied that the land had ever been allotted to the father of the appellant. The land was advertised for sale along with some other land for 15.9.1994 and after following the process of law the same was auctioned in favour of Azad Singh who had not been impleaded as a party. The auction had been confirmed and the warrants of possession had also been issued in favour of the auction purchaser which were sent to the Tehsildar, Gurgaon for delivery of possession, but the same were received back with the report of the field staff that there existed a Pukhta construction on the spot and that Usmal, Anil and plaintiff had occupied the area unauthorisedly and R.S.A. No. 4100 of 2007 -3- possession could not be delivered without police help. Usman is said to have filed a revision petition No.52/Rev./JSR/SC/95 in the Court of Joint Secretary, Rehabilitation and Settlement Commissioner who had passed the order on 14.12.1995 to maintain status quo with respect to the land in dispute and it was further stated that the auction and its confirmation orders and other proceedings are legal and are not liable to be cancelled. The trial Court framed the following issues and dismissed the suit :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is lawful owner in possession of the suit property? OPP 2. Whether the auction dated 15.9.94, confirmation order in case No.997 dated 27.10.94 and the execution proceedings on the basis thereof are illegal, null, void, without jurisdiction and are liable to be set aside?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction as claimed in the suit?OPP 4. Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has not availed of remedy available to him before filing the suit?OPD 6. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice u/s 80 CPC?OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 8. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose R.S.A. No. 4100 of 2007 -4- of court fee and jurisdiction?OPD 9. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 10. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD 11. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of compliance of Order 7 Rule 1(i) of CPC?OPD 12. Relief. In appeal, the findings of the trial Court were affirmed. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the appeal is without merit. The appellant has miserably failed to prove his title and the identity of the suit land. The allotment made vide allotment letter Ex.P2 which the appellant alleged to be in favour of his father pertains to some plot No.12 but the details of the property which have been given in the suit are totally contrary to the identity of the land which has been described in the allotment letter Ex.P2. That apart, the property in question is said to have been auctioned in favour of Azad Singh on 15.9.1994 which was subsequently confirmed in 27.10 1994. Said Azad Singh has not been impleaded as a party. Reference has also been made in the impugned judgment regarding one Usman who was alleged to be in possession of the property along with the appellant who was said to have preferred a revision petition against the allotment made in favour of Azad Singh. There is no material on record from which it can be inferred as to what happened to the revision petition and whether the rights have been determined in those proceedings. To a R.S.A. No. 4100 of 2007 -5- pointed query by this Court, learned counsel for the appellant could not satisfy the Court on this aspect of the matter. Consequently, the appeal is totally devoid of any merit. It does not raise a substantial question of law and in so far as the questions of facts are concerned, the same have been determined by the Courts below. Dismissed. 19.1.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss