PUNJAB STATE THROUGH COLLECTOR Vs. RAJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal has been filed against the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiff respondent for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from demolishing the tubewell and other construction over the land measuring 2 Kanal 1 Marla bearing Khewat No. 44, 425, Khatauni No. 473, 452, Khasra Nos. 977 and 971 measuring 22 Kanals 8 Marlas and 2 Kanals 3 Marlas respectively situated in village Chohal, H. B. No. 494, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur as per jamabandi for the year 1994-95, has been ordered to be decreed.

(2.) THE plaintiff had brought a suit for permanent injunction on the grounds that he purchased the land as fully detailed in the headnote of the plaint, measuring 22 Kanals 8 Marlas from Hardial Singh son of Naghayia son of Uttam resident of village Chohal vide sale deed dated 30.11.1992 and another land measuring 2 Kanal 3 Marlas bearing Khasra No. 971 from the Central/Punjab Government vide sale certificate dated 3.2.1994. It was the case of the plaintiff that the land bearing Khasra No. 977, as per jamabandi for the year 1946-47, before consolidation was converted into various khasra numbers. All the khasra numbers were under cultivation or under abadi khasra numbers are not pahar, but it is barani and banjar kadim and these khasra numbers were never under forest or under pahar. It was claimed that the notification under Land Preservation Act, 1970 and Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was not applicable to the land in dispute. It was claimed that there was no forest in the land in dispute at all. It was also claimed that as the purchase of the land measuring 2 Kanal 3 Marlas was from the Punjab Government, there was no restriction under the notification, as they applied to the private land and not to State/Central Government's land. It is also the case of the plaintiff that he has not violated the restriction so imposed in village Chohal vide notification dated 25.3.1988. It is also the case of the plaintiff that there was no restriction to raise construction. The aforesaid construction was in existence since 1994. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the defendants should only object to if there was any violation of the Punjab Land Preservation Act. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the restriction imposed vide notification dated 25.3.1988 was not applicable for raising construction over the land which was not under the forest or tress. It is also the case of the plaintiff that there were no tree in the land in which the construction was raised. It is further case of the plaintiff that after issuing notice to restrain the plaintiff from raising further construction an attempt was made to demolish the construction raised by the plaintiff.

(3.) THE learned Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a finding of fact that the land in dispute was under the cultivation prior to coming into force of the notification and further that the construction was raised prior to issuance of corrigendum dated 5.11.1997 and in view of this, the suit filed by the plaintiff respondent was decreed.