RSA No.1049 of 2006 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1049 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: January 15, 2010. Smt. Parvati & Ors. ...Appellant(s) v. Punjab State & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Shri N.S. Kandhola, Advocate, for the appellant(s). Shri Rajesh Garg, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1 to 5. Shri Gurdial Singh Jaswal, Advocate, for respondents No.6, 8, 9 and LRs of deceased respondent No.10. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby his suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land measuring 24 kanals bearing Khewat No.151 Khasra No.39//1 (8-0), 4(8-0), 5(8-0), situated in the area of village Patiari, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur on the basis of the Conveyance Deed dated 21.1.1986 and further that the revenue entries are wrong and are liable to be corrected, was dismissed, holding the same to be premature. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff was owner in possession of the land of Rehabilitation Department. Under the Package RSA No.1049 of 2006 -: 2 :- Deal Properties Act, 1976, applications were invited and land measuring 64 kanals was auctioned for a consideration of Rs.7,000/- on 7.8.1975 in a restricted auction in favour of the plaintiff who paid all the installments within the prescribed period. Hence, Tehsildar issued a sale certificate dated 21.1.1986 in his favour. The plaintiff presented the aforesaid sale certificate before Patwari for sanction of mutation but later on plaintiff found that mutation of 40 kanals out of the total land given to him was entered but mutation of 24 kanals, i.e., suit land was not entered in his favour and the same still stood in the name of Government which, according to him, was wrong. Plaintiff requested respondents No.1 to 5 to make corrections, however, no action was taken by the aforesaid respondents, hence this suit. Respondents No.1 to 5 filed written statement submitting therein that subject matter of the civil suit is already in issue in Regular Second Appeal No.812 of 1982, titled as Mia Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab. It was further submitted in the aforesaid written statement that vide decision taken in 1973, the land in dispute was allotted in favour of one Mia Mohinder Singh who was displaced from Pakistan and mutation of the same was entered in his favour on 21.9.1977 and, therefore, the suit land could not be auctioned to the plaintiff. It was further submitted that in 1981, the land allotted to Mia Mohinder Singh was declared surplus and the same came again under the ownership of Punjab Government. Since Mia Mohinder Singh had challenged the declaration of the surplus area and the matter was sub judice before this Court, mutation of land could not be entered in the name of the plaintiff. On appreciation of evidence on record and after hearing learned RSA No.1049 of 2006 -: 3 :- counsel for the parties, the trial court held that possession of the suit land was with the plaintiff since 1976 and it was further proved that sale certificate was also issued in favour of the plaintiff in 1986 and that suit property was auctioned in favour of the plaintiff but the suit property was allotted to Mia Mohinder Singh on the basis of civil court decision in 1973. It became surplus in 1981 on declaration of surplus land, which was challenged by Mia Mohinder Singh in RSA No.812 of 1982, so Revenue Department could not mutate the land in dispute in favour of the plaintiff due to pendency of the aforesaid claim by Mia Mohinder Singh and the suit was held to be premature. The aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court was upheld by the lower appellate court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 25.11.2005. Challenging the aforesaid judgment and decrees of the courts below, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that once the sale certificate was issued in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and he had become absolute owner of the property in dispute, mutation of the aforesaid land in his favour cannot be denied and thus, judgment and decrees of the courts below being perverse and contrary to the evidence on record, are liable to be set aside. On the aforesaid, learned counsel has argued that the following substantial question of law arises in this appeal:- “Whether the impugned judgment and decrees are perverse?” On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has vehemently argued that since the land in dispute was allotted to one Mia Mohinder Singh on the basis of a civil court decision in the year 1973 and mutation was also entered in his favour on 21.9.1977, the RSA No.1049 of 2006 -: 4 :- appellant cannot be held to be the owner of the suit land on the basis of auction held subsequently in the year 1975 and the sale certificate issued on 21.1.1986. It has been further submitted that no doubt the land at the hands of Mohinder Singh was declared surplus and the same came under the ownership of the State Government but the same cannot be held to be vested in the State Government till the matter of declaring land of Mia Mohinder Singh surplus becomes final and, thus, the findings of the courts below holding the suit of the plaintiff being premature are correct. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and decrees. It is pertinent to mention here that during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the parties have stated that the aforesaid Regular Second Appeal No.812 of 1982 has already been decided whereby the matter has been remanded to the civil court for fresh decision and the dispute regarding declaration of land area of Mia Mohinder Singh being surplus is pending. Thus, at this stage, the rights qua the suit property are sub judice between Mia Mohinder Singh and the State Government and it cannot be declared that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land on the basis of the sale certificate dated 21.1.1986. For the sake of argument, if at the asking of the plaintiff, the entry of mutation of ownership is changed in his name and on the other hand if the civil court decides the rights of the property in dispute in the civil suit in favour of Mia Mohinder Singh, the whole exercise of entering the mutation in favour of the plaintiff shall become meaningless. If, on the other hand Mia Mohinder Singh fails in the civil suit, in that case mutation can be entered in favour of the plaintiff-appellant to whom the land has been RSA No.1049 of 2006 -: 5 :- allotted on the basis of the sale certificate dated 21.1.1986. Otherwise also, admittedly the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land and is enjoying its fruits and the Government has taken no action qua the aforesaid land. Thus, unless the civil suit between Mia Mohinder Singh and the State Government is disposed of, rights of the plaintiff will not be clear and in this manner, the courts below rightly held that the suit filed by the appellant is premature. Therefore, I find no fault with the judgment and decrees of the courts below. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, has arisen in this appeal. Dismissed. January 15, 2010. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge