JASVIR SINGH Vs. CURO INDIA PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner and his family members were joint owners of the disputed land which they sold to the respondent real estate construction company to make a mall in the revenue estate of village Lohar Nangal, Tehsil & District Jalandhar, Punjab. By three separate sale deeds of even date 11th April, 2007, 40 K 1 M of land was sold and three separate sale deeds were registered before the Sub Registrar, Jalandhar on the same date i.e. 11 th April, 2007 at Sr. Nos.412, 414 and 419. Sale deed No.414 was for share of land in Khasra No.12//5/3 and 13//3. At the time of sanctioning mutation both parties were called by the revenue officer and the mutation was entered in the revenue record in their presence. The manner in which the division between the khasra numbers was drawn is set out in paras.5 & 6 of the petition and should not detain us.

(2.) DISPUTES with respect to sale consideration arose between the parties and cheques issued by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 were dishonoured which led to multiple litigation between the father of the petitioner on the one side and the defendant -Company on the other. Proceedings were initiated under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A winding up petition was also filed before this Court under Ss.433, 434 and 439 of the Companies Act, 1956 for winding up M/s Dynamic Continental Pvt. Ltd. Several criminal cases were also slapped and were pending before different trial Courts. However, the matter was settled before this Court in Company Petition No.55 of 2010 by order dated 8th April, 2011. The balance sale consideration was settled at Rs.5,50,00,000/ - to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner in the manner indicated in the order. The first instalment being payable on or before 10th May, 2011 the balance was to be paid through ten post -dated cheques in a sum of Rs.50,00,000/ - each in favour of Karamvir Singh to be handed over within 10 days from the date of the order. The parties were given liberty to make effort to withdraw, compromise or get quashed thirteen separate litigations and any proceedings initiated which are unknown to either party would also keel over. With the passage of time the present dispute arose when the respondent company started construction of a mall on the land. While the construction activity was in progress the petitioner started raising a dispute alleging encroachment by the respondent upon their land which adjoined the land sold to the respondent -Company. In the circumstances, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed an application dated 25th April, 2011 for demarcation of the land by the Tehsildar -I, Jalandhar. The Kanungo and Halqa Patwari were directed to conduct the demarcation at the spot. The demarcation proceedings were initiated and on visiting the disputed portion of the land it was revealed that the company had indeed encroached upon some of the land belonging to the petitioner and his relatives out of Khasra Nos.13//1/2/2, 13//2/2/2 and 13//3/2 which were retained by the petitioner in the sale transaction. The petitioner submits that faced with an adverse demarcation report, the respondents submitted another application to the Tehsildar on 20th May, 2011 with a prayer to withdraw the earlier application for demarcation stating that the same was filed erroneously by the earlier authorized signatory of the company. The revenue officer thus reported that the demarcation had already been carried out on 18th May, 2011.

(3.) HAVING met a roadblock and under continued threat of encroachment, the petitioner instituted a suit at Jalandhar for possession of 17 Marlas of land on the ground that they were illegally encroached by respondent Nos.1 and 2 lying in the khasra numbers as above. The prayer for mandatory injunction was made for restraining the respondents from raising construction over the disputed portion of the land and not to make any further encroachments. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed a written statement alleging that the mutation was wrongly sanctioned by the revenue authorities and they were going to take recourse to appropriate remedy for correction of mutation. Together with the suit an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC was also filed praying for temporary injunction. The trial Court has denied injunction by order dated 4th June, 2012 primarily on the ground that the dispute between the parties stood settled in the Company Petition.