HARDEEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT case is a glaring example to illustrate as to how one can abuse the process of law.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the present case, inter alia, are that respondent no. 3, herein, was the bhumidhar in possession of property bearing Khasra No. 604 measuring 0.05 Acre, Village Kanwali, Paragana Kendriya Doon, District Dehradun. Respondent No. 3 sold the property in question in favour of Birendra Prasad Kotnala, vide registered sale deed dated 22.7.1988, specifically stating therein that she (respondent no. 3) did not belong to either schedule caste or schedule tribe. Having purchased land, Mr. Birendra Prasad Kotnala moved an application under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act seeking mutation of his name in the revenue record. The then Patwari submitted his report before the Tehsildar, Dehradun to the effect that none of the parties to the sale deed dated 22.7.1988 belonged to either scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. Mutation was made in favour of Birendra Prasad Kotnala vide order dated 31.3.1989. Sri Birendra Prasad Kotnala remained in the possession of the land in question right from 22.7.1988 to 1.2.2006, when he sold the property in question in favour of Vikas Sabharwal and Suresh Pal. Having purchased the land from Birendra Prasad Kotnala on 1.2.2006, Mr. Vikas Sabharwal and Mr. Suresh Pal applied under Section 143 of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act to get the land in question recorded as abadi land, whereupon learned Sub Divisional Officer was pleased to declare the property in question as abadi land under Section 143 of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act, vide order dated 11.3.2008. Thereafter, Vikas Sabharwal ­ Suresh Pal sold the land in question in favour of the petitioner vide sale deed dated 16.6.2008. Meanwhile, after creation of State of Uttarakhand and after Capital was temporarily established in the city of Dehradun, cost of land in the periphery of Dehradun raised manifolds. Respondent no. 3, therefore, filed civil suit bearing O.S. No. 520 of 2008, claiming herself to be scheduled caste, for declaration of the sale deed dated 22.7.1988 and all the subsequent sale deeds null and void. An application seeking ad interim injunction was also moved before the learned Civil Judge in O.S. No. 520 of 2008, however, ad interim injunction application was rejected by the learned Civil Judge vide order dated 23.11.2009, making prima facie observation to the effect that plaintiff/respondent no. 3, herein, did not belong to schedule caste. Appeal filed against the rejection of the ad interim injunction application was also dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 31.12.2009.

(3.) MR . Deep Chandra Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that two civil suits are pending disposal, wherein question raised by the plaintiff/respondent no. 3 as to whether plaintiff/respondent no. 3 was scheduled caste and sale deed executed by her on 22.7.1988 was hit by Section 157 -A of U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act, therefore, all the subsequent sale deeds including the sale deed in favour of the petitioner were void. Mr. Deep Joshi further contends that learned Civil Judge has recorded prima facie finding that plaintiff/respondent no. 3 did not belong to schedule caste, as is apparent from the certificate issued by the then Lekhpal and meanwhile respondent no. 3 was able to get the contrary caste certificate issued in her favour, the only consequence of which would be that the petitioner would be deprived of his land purchased by him.