GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. SADHU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff (respondent herein) filed suit for permanent injunction on the ground that he had been a tenant to the extent of 1/2 share of land measuring 46 Bishas 3 Biswas and thus is entitled to compensation on account of acquisition of the said land. In para 2 of the plaint, plaintiff averred that defendant No. 1 (Petitioner herein) in connivance with the Revenue Authorities got certain entries manipulated in his favour. He, therefore, claimed that the said entries in favour of the defendant are illegal, void and without jurisdiction and do not bind the plaintiff in any manner. The suit is being contested by the defendants. Defendants in their written statement disputed the maintainability of the suit.

(2.) On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and one of the issues, "whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable and the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit" was treated as preliminary issue. The said issue was decided in favour of plaintiff and the suit was held to be maintainable. This order is being impugned here in this civil revision.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner made a reference to Sec. 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act and 1989 PLJ 70 : 1991(1) RRR 253 (S.K Dadwal Vs. Prem Singh & another ) to contend that when an efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner under Sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, suit for injunction is not maintainable. I am afraid to accept this contention. Dispute with regard to title having arisen, the same can be decided either in reference under Sec. 18 or 30 of the Land Acquisition Act or in a separate suit. Plaintiff in this case is alleging that the entries were manipulated in connivance with the Revenue Authorities. In other words, what he is wanting is a declaration that the entries in record-of-rights are not correct. Sec. 45 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act confers a right on a person aggrieved by an entry in record-of-right to seek relief of declaration. Any wrong entry in the record-of-right does not extinguish the right of the owner even if it is adverse to the owner. A Division Bench of this court in Karnail Singh Vs. Jagir Singh, 1984 PLJ 173 : 1985 R.R.R. 645 held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in such circumstances is not barred. Reliance was placed on the case title Dr. G.H. Grant Vs. The State of Bihar, AIR 1966 Supreme Court 237 in which it was held that the claim for compensation can be decided under Sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act or by a separate suit. S.K. Dadwal's case (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. In the said case, suit for specific performance of agreement to sell was available and, therefore, suit for injunction was held not to be maintainable.