STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. Vs. RAJ BALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The conspectus of the facts relevant for disposal of the present appeal and emanating from the record is that Smt. Raj Bala, wife of late Sh. Jai Parkash Respondent-Plaintiff (hereinafter to be referred as the Plaintiff filed the suit for a decree for possession of the disputed land against the State of Haryana and its officers Appellants-Defendants (for brevity the Defendants inter alia pleading that she is the owner of the suit land which was previously owned by Om Parkash, son of Charan Dass, son of Ruli Ram. The suit land was acquired by the Collector under the provisions of the East Punjab Land Utilization Act, 1949 (for short the Utilization Act and was allotted to Ex-servicemen Co-operative Joint Farming Society, on lease, in the year 1950 for a period of 20 years i.e. Kharif 1950 to Rabi, 1970. After expiry of the lease period, the Plaintiff applied to the Collector for return of the possession of the suit land by taking the possession back from the lessees (Society), but in vain. After a prolonged litigation upto the High Court, Plaintiff succeeded in getting the possessory rights through Collector vide entry (rapat roznamcha) dated 25.01.2000 in compliance with the provisions of the Utilization Act. Consequently, the Collector delivered the possession of the suit land to her.

(2.) According to the Plaintiff that the Defendants again occupied and illegally constructed the school building on the land in dispute. She claimed that the possession of the Defendants over the suit land is illegal, unauthorized and against the provisions of the Utilization Act. She asked the Defendants to surrender the possession and to pay mesne profits for unauthorized use and occupation of the suit land but in vain, even despite legal notice under Section 80 Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) Concisely, according to the Plaintiff, she is the owner and Defendants are in illegal and unauthorized possession of the disputed property. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, Plaintiff filed the suit for a decree for possession against the Defendants in the manner described hereinabove.