C. R. No. 766 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 766 of 2010 Date of Decision : September 15, 2010 State of Haryana and others .... Petitioners Vs. Ali Nawaz and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Narender Singh, DAG, Haryana for the petitioners. None for respondent no. 1. Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate for respondents no.2 to 4. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendants have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 30.04.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, thereby allowing application moved by plaintiffs/respondents for adjourning the case sine die till disposal of C. W. P. No. 2272 of 2003 pending in this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. C. R. No. 766 of 2010 2 Plaintiffs have filed the suit seeking declaration that they are entitled to purchase the suit land being unauthorized occupants thereof, as per latest notification of State of Haryana regarding allotment of land to unauthorized occupants. Defendants have inter alia pleaded that they have already filed eviction petition against the plaintiffs and there is no policy in existence for transfer of the suit land to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs alleged in their application that in C. W. P. No. 2272 of 2003 titled Dalmer Singh vs. State of Haryana and another, this Court has stayed the policy dated 01.11.2001 of the Government for allotment of land to unauthorized occupants. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that respondents' claim is not covered by any Government policy regarding allotment of land to unauthorized occupants. It was also contended that policy dated 01.11.2001, which has been stayed by this Court vide order dated 11.02.2003 in the case of Dalmer Singh (supra), is not applicable to the instant case as suit by the plaintiffs/respondents had been instituted on 14.08.2000 and therefore, policy dated 01.11.2001 was not even in existence when the suit was filed by the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents could not advance any meaningful argument to controvert the aforesaid contentions. On the other hand, plaintiffs have not referred to any particular Government notification or Government policy, under which they claim their right to purchase the suit land. Moreover, policy C. R. No. 766 of 2010 3 01.11.2001 was not in existence when the suit was filed by the respondents and consequently, claim of the respondents in the plaint is not on the basis of policy dated 01.11.2001, which has been stayed by this Court by interim order in the case of Dalmer Singh (supra). Consequently, there was no occasion for the trial court to adjourn the suit sine die so as to await the final decision of this Court in the case of Dalmer Singh (supra). The impugned order of the trial court is, therefore, illegal and unsustainable. The trial court has exercised jurisdiction, which did not vest in it. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that the petitioners are also not in possession of the entire suit land. However, this contention is not required to be commented upon by this Court in the instant revision petition as the same has to be adjudicated upon by the trial court, while deciding the suit. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 30.04.2009 passed by the trial court is set aside and trial court is directed to proceed with the suit and to dispose of the same in accordance with law. Since the suit is of the year 2000 i.e. almost a decade old, the trial court shall decide the suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably, within one year from the date of receipt of copy of this order. September 15, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE