STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER Vs. AJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the State of Haryana which is aggrieved against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff-respondent has been decreed and the defendants-State has been permanently restrained from interfering into possession and ownership rights of the plaintiff by auctioning the suit land or otherwise.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction alleging that he is owner in possession of the land measuring 51 kanals situated in the revenue estate of village Jagdishpura, Tehsil Kaithal, District Kurukshetra and the State had no title, right or interest in the suit land and the action of the State to auction suit land with a view to dispossess the plaintiff was illegal and void. It is further alleged that the right of the defendants-State having been extinguished by efflux of time and the plaintiff had become owner by way of adverse possession. The cause of action for filing of the suit was alleged to be accrued on 18.7.1986 since defendants were threatening to auction the land. Mention was also made of earlier suit filed for injunction which was dismissed in default on 3.6.1986.

(3.) In the preliminary objection of the written statement filed by the State various objections were taken like that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of Sections 36 and 46 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 respectively. Accordingly, the right of the plaintiff to approach the higher authorities was pleaded; that the suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 and Order XXIII Rules 3 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure since the earlier suit had already been dismissed in default on 3.6.1986. On merits, the defence taken by the State was that the property deemed to have vested in the custodian under Section 8(2-A) of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 and that the plaintiff himself had applied before the Tehsildar (Sales), Kaithal on 17.8.1962 for the transfer of the suit land on reserve price. The suit land was transferred to the plaintiff vide order dated 12.8.1971 subject to the approval of the competent authority for Rs.7,555/-. However, it was subsequently ordered by the Settlement Officer ( Sales) that "transfer be processed at current rates and upto date penal rent be realised." Accordingly, the plaintiff was summoned to appear before the Tehsildar (Sales) on 5.11.1984 but the plaintiff did not appear and Tehsildar (Sales) vide order dated 5.11.1984 dismissed in default the application filed by the plaintiff and in view of the fact that the plaintiff had applied for the transfer of land he is estopped from his own conduct to say anything contrary thereto. The right of Amrit Lal to sell the property was also denied and the mutation in his favour sanctioned on 24.1.1968 was wrong and illegal. The pleadings regarding adverse possession was also denied and it was held that such a claim cannot lie against the evacuee property. Accordingly, prayer was made for dismissal of the suit.