MEHANT BHAI HARISH SHASTRI Vs. KALU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants are in appeal against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below by which suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction that he has become owner of the property in dispute having been allotted to him after it was declared surplus by the Collector (Surplus Agrarian) vide order dated 27.06.1960 under Section 12 of the Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1972 has been decreed. The case set up by the plaintiff is that he was an old tenant on the surplus land measuring 65 Kanals 15 Marlas situated in village Nigana, Tehsil and District Rohtak and was permitted to purchase the same against total price of Rs. 17,044.69/ -, which was to be paid by him in ten installments and the first installment was to be paid before taking possession of the suit land as owner. It was further submitted that the plaintiff had deposited the first installment of Rs. 1,704.47/ - on 03.06.1977 and was delivered possession as owner on 08.01.1978. It was further alleged that one Ballab Ram S/o. Chela Ram filed suit for declaration that they are the owners in possession of the suit property which was decreed in their favour and the said decree has also been challenged being collusive and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. It was further alleged that the defendants have started threatening to dispossess the plaintiff from the land purchased by him. The injunction was also prayed that the defendants should be restrained from interfering in his possession.

(2.) IN the written statement, it was pleaded by the defendants that Mahant Tulsi Dass was a Gaddi Nashin of a religious charitable Gaddi known as Tikana Bhai Kirpa Ram Hari Mandir, Sadhu Sewa Punthi Ashram, Sant Pura, Kaithal. The land situated in village Barkhtabad, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, village Islamgarh, Tehsil Jhajjar, District Rohtak belonging to Gaddi Tikana Bhai Kirpa Ram and Mahant Tulsi Dass had no personal right, title or interest in it. It was also alleged that the land was neither declared surplus nor vests in the State of Haryana as alleged and is being used for religious and charitable purposes and as such, the permission, if any, to purchase the said land is illegal, without jurisdiction and does not give any right to the plaintiff. It was further alleged that the matter with regard to declaration of the suit land as surplus is still pending before the Special Collector, Haryana, Chandigarh, therefore, the question of getting any installment deposited and of delivering possession does not arise at all.

(3.) IN this appeal, the only objection raised by counsel for the appellants was that the matter with regard to declaration of the suit property as surplus by the Collector (Surplus Agrarian) is sub -judice before the Supreme Court in an SLP in which stay of dispossession has been granted in favour of the defendants -appellants.