AMARJIT SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff/appellant is in second appeal against the judgements and decrees passed by the courts below, whereby the suit for permanent injunction filed by him was partly decreed by the trial court and the appeal filed by him was dismissed by the appellate court.

(2.) Facts necessary for the decision of the present appeal are that the plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for injunction restraining the defendants from ousting him/interfering in his possession over the suit land measuring 71 kanals 14 marlas bearing khewatni no.2829/3972, 3999, 4054, 2829/4176, khasra nos. 487/2-15, 488/17-14, 493/9-19, 495/1602, 496/10-7, 497/2-4, 467/1(14-0), 467/1(10-0) being owner in possession of the same. It was alleged by him that the suit land was allotted to his deceased father Sohan Singh being member of a Harijan Society, who had been in continuous cultivating possession of the suit land since the date of allotment. Sohan Singh died on 3.11.1985 leaving behind two sons namely plaintiff Amarjit Singh and Krishan Lal, widow Bhago and two daughters namely Giano and Banso. While Giano and Banso were married and settled in their in laws' house, Krishan Lal was residing outside Kapurthala. It was further alleged that plaintiff was cultivating the suit land being the legal heir of deceased Sohan Singh as also on behalf of his mother, sisters and brother. It was also alleged by the plaintiff that he had also constructed a residential house in a portion of the suit land and that defendants having no concern with the suit land were trying to dispossess him.

(3.) Upon notice defendants filed written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff that the suit land was allotted to Sohan Singh. On the other hand, it was stated that Sohan Singh had requested that he be not allotted the land in dispute as the land in his possession was less than a unit of allotment. It was further stated that according to instructions of the Government of Punjab the land could not be allotted in favour of Sohan Singh and that the application moved by Sohan Singh requesting that he be not allotted land was filed by Collector, Kapurthala. It was denied that plaintiff had been in possession of the suit land. On the contrary, it was stated by the defendants/respondents that Forest Department had been in possession of the land in dispute since 1966 and had set up a nursery therein and as such forcible dispossession of the plaintiff did not arise.