R.S.A. No. 1905 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1905 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 3.3.2011 Amar Singh and another ......Appellants Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents ***** CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Satish Bhanot, Addl. A.G. Punjab. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that they had purchased the suit property from Amar Kaur and Gurmeet Kaur vide sale deed dated 26.7.1989. Thereafter, mutation was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs on the basis of sale deed qua the suit land. Defendant No.1 has passed an order to take possession of the suit land from the plaintiffs without any cause. Hence, suit was filed by the plaintiffs qua declaration that they were owners in possession of the suit land and for permanent injunction that defendants be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs R.S.A. No. 1905 of 2010 (O&M) 2 from the suit land. Defendants, in their written statement, denied the contentions in the plaint. It was averred that the suit property had been allotted to Amar Kaur and Gurmeet Kaur vide Rapat No.395 dated 29.3.1989. However, the said allotment was cancelled vide Rapat No.459 dated 18.4.1990 by the Tehsildar, Nabha. Hence, the sale deed alleged to have been executed by the allottees in favour of the plaintiffs was not binding on the rights of the defendants. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs are owner in equal share over the suit property ? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for ? OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for ? OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit ? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 of CPC ? OPD. 7. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit ? OPD. 8. Whether the suit is false, frivolous, and vexatious and defendants are entitled to special costs ? OPD. 9. Whether the suit is not properly verified R.S.A. No. 1905 of 2010 (O&M) 3 according to law, if so, its effect ? OPD. 10. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 21.1.2010, Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nabha decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree defendants preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by the District Judge, Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 30.3.2010. Consequently, suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the plaintiffs had purchased the suit property from the allottees Amar Kaur and Gurmeet Kaur vide sale deed dated 26.7.1989. Thereafter, mutation was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs on 8.8.1989 qua the suit land. The fact that the plaintiffs had become owner in possession of the suit land was also incorporated in the revenue record. No notice had been issued to the allottees or to the plaintiffs at the time of passing of the cancellation order of allotment dated 18.4.1990. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the sale deed executed by the allottees in favour of the plaintiffs was not binding on the rights of the defendants as the allotment in favour of the allottees had been cancelled. It has been further submitted by the learned State counsel that the allottees could not sell the suit land to any person for 13 years after allotment. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. R.S.A. No. 1905 of 2010 (O&M) 4 Admittedly, the suit land was allotted to Amar Kaur and Gurmeet Kaur on 20.3.1989. Thereafter, the said allottees executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs on 26.7.1989. Mutation was duly sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs on 8.8.1989 and their names were incorporated in the revenue record as owner of the suit land. However, the allotment in favour of the allottees Amar Kaur and Gurmeet Kaur was cancelled vide order dated 18.4.1990. The said order was not challenged by the allottees or by the plaintiffs. In these circumstances, since the allotment in favour of the allottees Amar Kaur and Gurmeet Kaur had been cancelled, the plaintiffs cannot draw any benefit from the sale deed executed by the allottees in their favour. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 3, 2011 Anand