LAWS(P&H)-2007-5-98

MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Vs. RANJIT SINGH

Decided On May 28, 2007
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Appellant
V/S
RANJIT SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT regular second appeal has been filed against the judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below vide which suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction has been ordered to be decreed.

(2.) THE plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction on the plea that they are permanent residents of village Balaur, Tehsil Bahadurgarh District Jhajjar. The case set up by the plaintiffs was that prior to the independence the land comprised in Khewat No. 136/139, Khatoni No. 327, Khasra No. 639, and land measuring 3 bighas 12 biswas pukhta was under the ownership of shamlat Pana Nashiyan @ 5 biswa and was under the tenancy of Attaulla son of Azemmuddin, resident of Bahadurgarh as gair marusi. The land was cultivated by Sohan son of Azemmudin as tenant. After the partition of the contrary (country ?) Attaulla son of Azemmudin shifted to Pakistan. The land was recorded on the basis of biswardari rights in favour of Custodian Department and consequently Custodian Department allotted the land bearing khasra No. 638/1 (13-12) biswas and 639/2(0-1) biswa and allotted to Nebh Raj son of Dalu Ram and Nemat Rai under allotment Nos. 92/38/1 and 92/38/2, respectively. The land was inherited by their sons namely Heera Nand and Chakan Lal. The mutation was sanctioned in their favour. Heera Nand and Chakan Lal sold the allotted land in favour of Pehlad Singh, Surat Singh and Ranjit Singh vide sale-deed bearing No. 161/141, Khatoni No. 426, Khasra No. 639 min measuring 3 bighas 12 biswas pukhta. Pehlad Singh, Surat Singh and Ranjeet Singh sons of Sohan become owners and Sohan son of Gurdial cultivated the land as gair marusi who was father of the vendees. Nemat Rai son of Dalu Ram sold the land comprised in khewat No. 161 Khata No. 427, Khasra No. 639 min on 3.8.1959 through registered sale-deed. Land measuring 0-12 biswas was deducted as a pukhta road and thus, all vendees claimed to have become the owners in possession of the land after the death of Sohan Lal. However, many mutations have been inserted in the jamabandi but the same had no effect on the suit land, in any manner, except the area measuring 0-12 Biswas which was used for Pukhta road. Consequently, the plaintiffs claimed that after the death of Sohan Lal, Pehlad Singh, Surat Singh plaintiffs have inherited the suit land and they are the owners in possession of the suit land measuring 2 bighas 13 biswas because land used for old path is under the cultivation in place of land used for pukhta road. However, entries in the revenue record was effected in view of the Govt. Notification No. HLA P-1999-D dated 9.2.1990 and the land of the plaintiffs was mutated in favour of Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh. On the basis of said mutation land stood under the ownership of Panna 5 biswa and same has affected the legal rights of the plaintiffs. Consequently, it was claimed that the revenue entries are wrong and did not depict the correct picture.

(3.) DEFENDANT Nos. 2 to 4 filed separate written statement and it was claimed that the Union of India and other functionaries are unnecessary parties to the suit. It was claimed that the Custodian and Rehabilitation Department has no interest in the suit land. It was also claimed that the suit land was acquired as evacuee property in the year 1947 and was allotted to the displaced persons in the year 1950 and hence the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit as envisaged under Sections 36 and 46 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, respectively. It was claimed that the plaintiffs were at liberty to approach the higher authorities of this department. It was also claimed that the suit was liable to be dismissed for want of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was claimed that the suit land was acquired by the Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh as per Gazette Notification dated 9.2.1999 as mentioned in the mutation under challenge. On merit, the averments made by the plaintiff were denied.