IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Letters Patent Appeal No.1096 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 1.9.2010 Satpal …..Appellant versus The State of Haryana and another ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for the appellant Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This appeal has been filed against orders passed by the learned Single Judge on 13.5.2010 and 16.7.2010, dismissing as withdrawn CWP No.11004 of 1990 and also dismissing application filed by the appellant- petitioner to review earlier order passed. It is apparent from the records that on 13.5.2010, on making statement by counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a civil suit. Further concession was given to the petitioner that if suit is filed within two months from above said date, benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act shall be granted to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application with a prayer to withdraw the statement made on 13.5.2010 and for restoration of writ petition, which was dismissed vide order dated 16.7.2010. We are of the opinion that the orders passed are perfectly justified. Even on merit, we are not convinced with the arguments raised by counsel for the appellant. Letters Patent Appeal No.1096 of 2010(O&M) It is an admitted fact that in the year 1956, land measuring 100 kanals was leased out to the appellant against a lease deed. Clause 7 and 8 of the lease reads thus:- “Clause 7 The tenant shall at all times, on receipt of a requisition in writing signed by Collector, permit the said Collector to take possession of, and finally to resume for the Government. So much of the said lands as may from time to time, in the opinion of the said Collector, be required for the construction repairs of maintenance of railways, roads, water courses or any work connected therewith.” Clause 8 No compensation shall be claimed by the tenant or any other person in respect of such reservation or resumption as is referred to in clauses 6 and 7 but in respect of any area so reserved no occupiers rate, land revenue, or cesses shall be payable by the tenant.” In the lease deed, it was specifically provided that if land out of the leased land is needed for construction, repairs or maintenance of railways, roads, water courses or any work connected therewith, no compensation shall be provided to the lessee. It is an admitted fact that about 5 kanals of land was used by the State authorities for construction of a road in the year 1971-72. No objection was raised by the appellant. He was satisfied with the use of land by the State authorities. Thereafter, on 25.11.1985, the appellant became owner of the land, on the basis of sale deed, executed by the State in his favour. Even thereafter, no attempt was made to claim possession of 5 kanals of land, which was used for construction of the road. The appellant started this litigation only in the year 1990. It appears that before this, the appellant filed a Civil suit, which 2 Letters Patent Appeal No.1096 of 2010(O&M) was got dismissed as withdrawn on 20.9.1989. Perusal of the order indicates that the suit was withdrawn by stating that there was some technical defect in the suit and the appellant-plaintiff does not want to prosecute the same and it was prayed that the suit be dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the appellant to re-file the same subject to payment of `200/- as costs. Instead of filing a suit, the appellant filed CWP No.11004 of 1990, claiming possession of the land used for construction of the road. We are of the opinion that in view of facts and circumstances of this case, the appellant is not entitled to any relief. In the lease deed, it was specifically mentioned that if land is used for construction of roads etc, no compensation shall be paid to the lessee. The appellant became owner of the land in the year 1985. 5 kanal land was used in the year 1972 for construction of a road. If there was defect in the sale deed, he should have challenged the same before an appropriate form immediately after execution of the same. No case is made out for interference. However, amount of costs of `25000/-, imposed by the learned Single Judge is reduced to `5000/- No case is made out to condone delay. Accordingly, application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal stands dismissed. With the above mentioned modification, this appeal stands disposed of. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 01.09.2010 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 3