OM PARKASH Vs. LAKHMI CHAND AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this order, above mentioned two petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the order dated 13.12.2011 (Annexure P-1), whereby, the summoning order dated 4.9.2010 (Annexure P-3), passed by the trial Court, was set aside by the court of revision.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that these petitions deserve to be dismissed.

(3.) Case of the complainant/ petitioner, in brief, is that he was co-owner in possession of the land bearing khasra No. 666 (0-2), 667 (0-4) total measuring 6 marlas. Prior to the year 1961-62 two shops were constructed on some portion of the land. The shops were assessed to House Tax by the Municipal Committee. Earlier Bhuley and Radhey were owners in possession of the suit land. After the death of Bhuley, his sons and daughter became co-owners in possession of the said land in equal shares. Ram Swroop, son of Bhuley, sold his entire share out of the suit land to the complainant, Pyare Lal, Dhani Ram and Bhagwan Dass vide registered sale deed dated 27.7.1984. Bhagwan Dass and Dhani Ram sold their share to the complainant and Pyare Lal vide sale deed dated 3.3.1989. Pyare Lal, Dhani Ram, Bhagwan Dass and complainant were shown in possession of the shops bearing Unit No.53 and 54 in the House Tax Assessment record of the Committee. After execution of the sale deed dated 3.3.1989, names of Dhani Ram and Bhagwan Dass were deleted from the record and names of Ramesh Chand and complainant were entered in the record. On 4.9.2002, accused Lakhmi Chand and Harish Chander @ Tinu, in connivance with each other, illegally dispossessed the petitioner and Ramesh Chand from the shops in dispute and presented forged and fabricated documents before the Municipal Committee. The other accused by misusing their power and without verifying the actual facts deleted the names of complainant and Ramesh Chand from their record and entered the names of accused Lakhmi Chand in their record. The matter was enquired by the police and final report was submitted before the Court, which was wrong and was liable to be rejected.