MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE RANIA Vs. SUKHDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been directed by Municipal Committee, Rania, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing the impugned judgment and decree dated 13.2.1995, Annexure P-3, passed by the Additional District Judge, Sirsa, whereby the appeal filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 against the judgment and decree dated 19.9.1994 Annexure P-2, was accepted in terms of the joint statements of respondents No. 1 to 6.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that the petitioner-Committee is the owner of the land measuring 8 Kanals 3 Marlas as detailed in paragraph 3 of the petition according to the Jamabandi for the year 1992-93, Annexure P-1. It was averred that petitioner-Committee came into existence in the month of March 1976 and continued upto 1987 when it was abolished vide notification dated 25.7.1987. Again vide notification dated 28.9.1992, the Municipal Committee Rania, came into existence and the area of village Rania was declared as Municipal area and it started functioning from 30.12.1992 and since then it is continuously functioning as such. It was further averred that respondent No. 1-Sukhdev Singh and respondent No. 2-Jarnail Singh sons of Pritam Singh filed civil suit No. 673 of 1989 on 14.12.1989 for permanent injunction against private respondents No. 3 to 6 and the Gram Panchayat (proforma respondent No. 7), for restraining them from interfering in any manner into the ownership and possession of respondents No. 1 and 2 with respect to the land comprised in plot Nos. 7 to 11 comprised in Khasra Nos. 110 and 123 situate within the revenue estate of village Rania and also further restraining them from creating any street whatsoever through the above mentioned land. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 19.9.1994 Annexure P-2. It was held that the street in question vested in the Gram Panchayat and respondents No. 1 and 2 had no right to retain a portion of the street which has been forcibly encroached upon by them. However, the Municipal Committee was not impleaded as a party, although it had come into existence vide notification dated 28.9.1992 and the land in question vested in the Municipal Committee. It was further averred that dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 19.9.1994 Annexure P-2, respondents No. 1 and 2 filed an appeal on 22.9.1994 and in that appeal the private respondents No. 3 to 6 and respondents No. 1 and 2 effected a compromise and accordingly the suit was decreed vide judgment Annexure P-3 on the basis of that compromise by making the site plan Annexure C to be part of that decree. Thus, respondents No. 1 and 2 after joining hands with the private respondents succeeded to grab the land of the petitioner-Committee. So, the judgment and decree dated 13.2.1995 of the lower Appellate Court was liable to be set aside as the land in question vested in the Municipal Committee and respondents No. 3 to 6 had no right to compromise with respondents No. 1 and 2. With these allegations, the present revision petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) ON merits, they stated that the street passed alongside the plots on the Northern side as well as the Southern side but no street passed through the aforesaid plots.