SADHU RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's second appeal.

(2.) The land in dispute was acquired by the State Government for quarrying Bajri, stones etc., vide its notification No. 18140-BC/822/44 dated 25.5-1951, for the project namely Harike Pattan Head Works at Harike Pattan, District Ferozepur. The said project was completed in or about in the year 1965. After completion of the project was the land was no more required by the Government. The defendants decided to auction the land for the purpose of cultivation, but none came forward to bid for the same, as the entire land was Banjar Qadim and Choe Burd. The plaintiff approached the Executive Engineer sometimes in the year 1965 for taking the land on long term lease so that he could reclaim the same. Defendant No. 3, Executive Engineer, Harike Division, Ferozepur, leased out the land. The case of the plaintiff is that land was leased out to him for a period of 20 years. The lease was renewed year after year with the understanding that the plaintiff would continue as lessee for 20 years on payment of lease money. Lease money was deposited by the plaintiff in the office of S.D.O. (Public Works Department) every year. Plaintiff after taking the land on lease, reclaimed the same at a cost of Rs. 1,40,000/- and constructed houses for the residence of his servants and Karindas and for his own residence at a cost of Rs. 80,000/-. Plaintiff incurred these expenses on an assurance given to him by the defendants that he would continue as lessee for 20 years. In the year 1967, defendant No. 3 with the approval of the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, decided that the suit land be surrendered to the owners as provided in para 87 of the Financial Commissioner's Standing Order No. 28 read with paras 493/495 of the Land Administration Manual. In pursuance of the said decision defendant No. 3 wrote many letters to the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, to finalise the action to surrender the land to the original owners. Defendant No. 3 also informed the plaintiff that the land in suit would be surrendered to the owners. Acting on this assurance, the plaintiff purchased the rights of the landowners vide registered sale-deeds, details of which have been given in Annexure 'B' attached to the plaint. Plaintiff further stated in the plaint that he has acquired equitable ownership rights over the suit land and he is in peaceful cultivating possession of the same. Plaintiff, therefore, prayed a decree for declaration to the effect that he being in peaceful cultivating possession as equitable owner of the land is not entitled to be dispossessed from the suit land. He also claimed consequent relief for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession of the suit land.

(3.) The suit filed by the plaintiff was contested by the defendants who filed joint written statement. In the written statement, allegations made by the plaintiff were denied. However, it was admitted that the land in suit was leased out to the plaintiff. It was denied that lease was for a period of 20 years. It was however, admitted by the defendants that the suit land has now become Barani. They also claimed that there is no legal bar to dispossess the plaintiff.