BALBIR SINGH Vs. LALIT MOHAN JAIN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No.6241-C of 2008

(2.) The brief facts, necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that plaintiff-respondents filed the instant suit i.e. Civil Suit No.330 of 09.12.1996 seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants (including appellant) from interfering in their possession, as well as ownership rights of the land in question and from demolishing the construction existing on the land in question alleging that the defendants had no right, title or interest in the suit land and revenue entries in respect of the suit land were illegal, invalid and nullity in the eyes of law. It is the version of the plaintiffs that they were lawful owners in possession of the suit land measuring 18K-12M comprised in khewat No.571, Rect.No.42, killa No.8(8-0), 9/1(5-19), 10/2/2(4-15) situated in the revenue estate of village Choma, Tehsil and District Gurgaon which was purchased from appellant vide registered sale deed dated 30.05.1988 for consideration. Mutation No.2156 was also sanctioned in their favour on 18.03.1989. The plaintiffs had purchased total area of 21K- 19M. However, some of the land was utilized by the Government for construction of the road and the land in question falls on both the sides of the roads constructed by the Government. After purchase of the land, plaintiffs immediately constructed boundary wall on three sides of the land and also fixed pillars with barbed wire and also constructed a pucca kotha and also installed a tubewell having electric connection No.GAG-688 in the land in question and since then, were in actual and physical cultivating possession. Defendants have got no right, title or interest in the suit land which was purchased with the consent, knowledge and notice of defendant Manohar Bansal who gave his consent on the sale deed of the plaintiffs admitting and acknowledging their ownership as well as possession on the suit land.

(3.) Defendant No.1 who was a big property dealer started carving out an unauthorized colony surrounding the land of the plaintiffs and started constructing roads without seeking prior permission from District Town Planner, Gurgaon and approached the plaintiffs to purchase the land in question saying that the land of the plaintiffs is falling in between his project. However, plaintiffs refused to oblige him. He threatened the plaintiffs that he will forcibly take possession and demolish their construction. About a week ago, they came to know that Manohar Bansal, illegally and in collusion with the revenue staff and defendants got some manipulation in the revenue record with intention to grab the land of the plaintiffs and about two days ago, the defendants forcibly and illegally demolished the four walls of the plaintiffs land and also uprooted the cemented poles. The action of the defendants was contrary to the law as they had no right to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs and entries in the revenue record, if any, in their favour or any other document pertaining to the land in question was illegal, forged and result of fraud and was not binding upon them. The defendants had never remained in the possession of the land in question. The plaintiffs also made a complaint to the police but no action was taken. Defendants were adamant to take forcible possession and to further demolish the construction. Hence the suit.