RSA No. 1299 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1299 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision 27.7.2011. Anarkali & another ...... Appellants. versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.PURI Present : Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate for the appellant. K.C.PURI . J. C.M.No. 3880 C- of 2010 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of forty seven days in re-filing the appeal stands condoned. C.M.No. 3881 C- of 2010 2. The application for exempting the filing of certified copies of judgment and decree of the trial Court has been moved. RSA No. 1299 of 2010 2 The same stands allowed. Main appeal. 3. Challenge in this regular second appeal is the judgment and decree dated 29.7.2009 passed by Shri Vivek Bharti, learned Additional District Judge, Jind vide which the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs/appellants against the judgment and decree dated 20.9.2008 passed by Shri Rajan Walia, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Safidon was dismissed. 4. Anarkali and Rajpal have filed a suit for permanent injunction against the State of Haryana and others with the allegations that they are in possession of the house situated in Gita Colony, Safidon as detailed in the plaint. Plaintiffs have purchased the same from Fauja Singh and Joginder Singh vide sale deed dated 7.7.1989 for a consideration of Rs.9000/-. The defendants without any right or interest are adamant to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. Hence this suit. 5. On put to notice, defendants filed written statement taking preliminary objection that the plaintiffs have no cause of action and locus standi. The suit is not maintainable in the present form. That suit is barred by principles of res judicata. 6. On merits, it is averred that the Government of Haryana vide Notification No.2238/D-2 dated 18.2.1986 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short – the Act) in respect of land measuring 19 kanals 15 marlas comprised in rect. No.103 Killa No.22/3 (3-10) and 23/2 (4-5) Rect. No.110 Killa No.½ (4-0) and Killa No.2(8-0) described in RSA No. 1299 of 2010 3 jamabandi for the year 1979-80 situated in the revenue estate of Safidon for the construction of quarters for the employees of Police Station, Safidon. Prem Singh, Fauja Singh and Joginder Singh were the owners in jamabandi for the year 1979-80 to the extent of 2/3 shares in equal shares. Makhan Singh was owner of 2/9 shares and Smt.Jeet Kaur daughter of Teja Singh was owner of 1/9 share in respect of the acquired land. Notice under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 10.2.1987 and proceedings under Sections 7 and 9 of the Act were also recorded and taken through by the Acquisition Collector. The State became owner of the property and the property vested in the State. The vendors of plaintiff have no right to sell the property. They have raised the illegal construction over the suit property. The land has been acquired for the purpose of construction of quarters for the employees of Police Station, Safidon. The amount of compensation awarded vide Award dated 12.12.1998 was deposited by the State of Haryana. The owners submitted application under Section 18 of the Act to the Land Acquisition Collector for enhancement of compensation amount and that reference was decided vide order dated 31.3.1990 enhancing the compensation. In the Award, it is mentioned that construction raised by plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are illegal unauthorized and plaintiffs have been directed to remove the construction. The suit of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation and principles of res judicata as the matter in question has already been decided on 31.3.1990 in Land Acquisition Cases No.24, 25, 26 dated 25.7.1989 and the compensation has been deposited. 7. Replication filed by the plaintiff controverting the allegations of the written statement and reiterated those of the plaint. From the RSA No. 1299 of 2010 4 pleadings of the parties following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction as prayed for ?OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form ?OPD 3. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit ?OPD 4. Whether the plaintiffs have concealed the material facts from the courts ?OPD 5. Whether no notice under Section 80 CPC has been served by the plaintiffs to the defendants ?OPD 6. Relief. 8. To prove their case Rajpal, one of the plaintiffs appeared as (PW-1) and also examined Roshan Lal (PW-2), Shyam Sunder (PW-2 wrongly numbered), Ved Parkash (PW-3) and Jaipal Singh as PW-4 and also produced certain documents on the record. 9. The defendant examined Tejpal as DW-1 and closed the evidence after tendering certain documents on the record. 10. The learned trial Court took up issue Nos. 1 to 5 together and issue No.1 was decided against the plaintiff whereas issue Nos. 2 , 3and 4 were decided in favour of the defendants. Issue No.5 was not pressed. In view of the finding on issue Nos.1 to 4, suit of the plaintiff for injunction was dismissed. 11. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said judgment and decree, the plaintiffs preferred the First Appeal which was dismissed by Shri Vivek Bharti, Additional District Judge, Jind vide judgment and decree dated 29.7.2009. RSA No. 1299 of 2010 5 12. Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgments and decrees, passed by the Courts below, the present regular second appeal has been filed by the appellants. The appellants in paragraph No.16 of the grounds of appeal have mentioned that following substantial question of law have arisen :- A)- Whether the impugned judgments and decree passed by the courts below without properly appreciating the evidence produced on the record are sustainable in the years of law ? B)- Whether the findings and observations of the courts below are based on legal provisions and record on the file ? C)- Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by courts below are contrary to the provisions of CPC? D)- Whether the Appellants/Plaintiffs who are admittedly in possession of the suit property on the basis of registered sale-deeds can be dispossessed forcibly ? E)- Whether the Appellants/Plaintiffs are entitled to protect their possession over the houses in dispute especially when the purpose of acquisition has come to an end ? 13. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that admittedly, the plaintiffs/appellants are in possession of the suit property. So, in these circumstances, even if the ownership claim of the plaintiffs is not held valid in that case also they cannot be dispossessed forcibly except in due course of law. It is also submitted that both the Courts below have ignored the basic legal provisions and the judgments and decrees passed by them are contrary to the law. Their possession should be protected till their eviction in due course of law. 14. I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission. RSA No. 1299 of 2010 6 15. The reliance of the plaintiffs/appellants is on the basis of sale deed dated 7.7.1987 in their favour. It is proved on the file that notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 8.2.1986 and that of under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 10.2.1987. So, in these circumstances, it is clear that plaintiffs have purchased the property after it has vested in the State of Haryana. The land was acquired for the purpose of constructing quarters for the police officials. The said acquisition has not been challenged for the last more than 24 years. No injunction can be issued against the true owner, moreso in the presence of acquisition. It is settled principle of law that buyer should be beware of defect in title of property. It cannot be said that plaintiffs have got no knowledge of the notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, referred to above. In the Award by the Collector itself it has been mentioned that plaintiffs are in illegal possession and they be dispossessed. The land owners applied for enhancement of compensation and that matter has already been decided vide judgment dated 31.3.1990. So, in these circumstances, substantial question of law raised by the appellant stands determined against the appellant and consequently the appeal stands dismissed. 16. Consequently, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. 17. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict compliance. ( K.C.PURI ) JUDGE July 27, 2011 sv