AMARJEET SINGH Vs. NACHHATTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER claims to be the owner of land measuring 31 Kanals 11 Marlas situated in village Munawan, Tehsil Zira, along with his brother and sisters and he is holding a General Power of Attorney on their behalf. Nachhattar Singh, respondent No. 1 was the tenant over the aforesaid land. Petitioner, his brother and sisters filed an ejectment petition on Form 'L' in which the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Zira vide his order dated 5.5.1986 ordered ejectment of the said respondent from the land in question. Appeal filed by respondent No. 1 against the order of the Assistant Collector was dismissed by the Collector by order dated 12.6.1987. Revision filed by respondent No. 1 before the learned Commissioner was also dismissed by order dated 12.8.1991. Still not satisfied, respondent No. 1 filed another revision under Section 24 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab which also met with the same fate on 11.11.1993. Having lost in the proceedings before the Revenue authorities, respondent No. 1 filed a civil suit 5261 of 7.12.1993 in the court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Zira for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner and his co-sharer from interfering in his peaceful possession over the land in dispute except in due course of law. On 2.3.1994, respondent No. 1 (plaintiff in that suit) made a statement on oath in the court that he is cultivating the land which he had taken on lease from Amarjeet Singh. He further stated that the Financial Commissioner had decided the case against him and that he would hand over the possession after harvesting that crop. In view of the statements of the parties made on 2.3.1994 in the said suit, the suit was dismissed with the direction that the plaintiff (respondent No. 1 in the contempt petition) would deliver peaceful possession of the suit land to the defendants by 30.4.1994. It is worthwhile to mention here that the defendants in the said suit were Amarjeet Singh, petitioner here and his brother Balwinder Singh. Statement made by respondent No. 1 on 2.3.1994 and the order passed by the trial Court on the same date are available on the record as Annexures P-6 and P-7 respectively.

(2.) AS noticed above, possession of the suit land was to be delivered by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner and his brother by 30.4.94 as directed by the trial Court, but since it was not done, the petitioner filed execution proceedings, got issued a warrant of possession in pursuance of which the Field Kanungo and the Patwari Halqa vide report Roznamcha No. 239 dated 14.5.1994 delivered symbolic possession of the land to the petitioner and actual physical possession could not be delivered as respondent No. 1 had already sown crop on the land.

(3.) IN response to notice having been issued, the respondents filed their joint reply. The stand taken by the respondents is that the statement made by respondent No. 1 on 2.3.1994 in his suit is not signed by his advocate and it cannot be read as a compromise in terms of provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A candid stand has been taken by respondent No. 1 that he was not keeping good health and was not in a fit and proper state of mind to take appropriate decision in the matter. In support of this, he placed on record a Medical Certificate dated 11.4.1994, copy Annexure R-1. Allegation of the petitioner that respondent No. 2 son of respondent No. 1 had full knowledge of the litigation going on between the parties and the orders passed therein was stoutly denied.