RSA No. 3394 of 2008 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 3394 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 22.12.2009 Mansa Ram ... Appellant vs State of Haryana and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Ms. Minakshi Poswal, Advocate, for the appellant. Rajesh Bindal J. Plaintiff is in appeal before this court against concurrent findings of both the courts below whereby the suit filed by him for declaration and mandatory injunction was dismissed. Briefly the facts as are available on record are that the appellant- plaintiff was allotted land measuring 54 kanals 7 marlas from the reserve quota in Village Mugal Majra, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, vide conveyance deed dated 16.2.1976 for a sum of Rs. 7,000/-. The said amount was to be paid in installments. He claimed that after deposit of three installments, the possession of the land was handed over to him and entries to that effect were also made in the revenue record. After the purchase, the land fell into the bed of Markanda River and remained under the same for years together. The land came out of the Markanda in the year 1997 and this fact came to his knowledge in the month of October, 1998. Thereafter, he approached the defendants to pay the remaining amount and to hand over the possession of the suit land to him again but he came to know that the said land had been realloted to respondent no. 3. He submitted that he purchased the land in open auction and was the original allottee and allotment of land in favour of respondent no. 3 is illegal. Notice was also served upon the respondents but respondent no. 1 refused to do so, which led to the filing of the suit. The stand of respondents no. 1 and 2 was that land was purchased by appellant Mansa Ram in restricted auction held on 23.9.1975 for consideration of Rs. 7,000/-. He deposited an amount of Rs. 875/- as earnest money. The sale was confirmed by S. O. (Sales) vide order dated 5.1.1976 and the possession was also delivered to the auction purchaser. On 10.1.1979, a notice was issued to the appellant-plaintiff to deposit the installments due from him but he failed to do so. The land was resumed from the appellant by Tehsildar vide order dated 11.3.1979 and order for re-auction was passed. After that, the land in question along with RSA No. 3394 of 2008 -2- other land was allotted to Guru Singh Sabha through Secretary to Chief Khalsa Diwan in the year 1984. Respondent no. 3 in its reply also took similar stand and stated that the suit land was allotted to it in lieu of land left in Pakistan in District Gujranwala. He further stated that the matter was finally decided by this court in CWP No. 1048 of 1962 vide judgment dated 24.10.1968. After appreciating the evidence led by the parties, the learned trial court, dismissed the suit finding that the appellant failed to deposit the balance amount and notice in this regard was issued to him and service effected on 10.1.1979 (Ex. D4). Thereafter, order dated 17.2.1979 was passed recommending forfeiture of the amount of Rs. 825/- deposited by the appellant. Vide order dated 11.3.1979, the Tehsildar sales cancelled the sale-deed dated 23.9.1975 and forfeited the amount deposited by the plaintiff. It has also been proved that after cancellation of sale-deed in favour of the appellant, he was also informed regarding re-auction of the land on 24.7.1979 vide notice dated Ex. D5 dated 2.7.1979. The land was allotted to respondent no. 3 vide Sanad Ex. D7 on quasi permanent basis under the conditions published vide the Notification of the Government of Punjab No. 4892-S dated 18.7.1949. The court below rightly relied upon evidence led by the defendants as the same was proved beyond doubt vide documents (Ex. D3 and Ex. D5) that notice was given to the appellant before cancellation and re-auction. Both the courts found that the appellant had failed to deposit the balance consideration despite notice. In the presence of such an evidence, it cannot be said that the appellant had not been served any notice, rather it has been proved on record that notices regarding deposit of balance amount, cancellation of sale-deed and that of re-auction were served upon him. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to refer to any material on record which has either not been considered or misread by the learned courts below to negate the claim made by him. The case set up by the appellant/plaintiff fell flat as it was based on falsehood. Considering the aforesaid facts, it is a case where the appellant- plaintiff has failed to establish his claim. The findings recorded by the courts below are plain and simple findings of fact giving rise to no question of law much less a substantial question of law. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. As there is no merit in the appeal, the application for condonation of delay is also dismissed. 22.12.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge