PARVATI Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) On appreciation of evidence on record and after hearing learned 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.