QUDRAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's second appeal whose suit for the grant of the perpetual injunction has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit for the grant of the perpetual injunction restraining the State of Haryana from auctioning or in any other manner alienating the site, in dispute. According to him, plot No. 310-R, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar, was allotted to him on instalments just as to other members of the society known as Attok District Refugee Co-operative House Building Society Limited, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar. Some area adjacent to the said plot, measuring 45' x 70' was also allotted to him. On the assurances given by the defendant State he also raised construction thereon. Now that the defendant was going to re-auction the said area, he filed the present suit for the grant of the perpetual injunction restraining the defendant State from auctioning or in any other manner alienating the vacant site, in dispute, and also for the grant of the mandatory injunction directing them to allot the said site to him on receipt of the balance price of Rs. 6,350/-. The suit was contested inter alia on the ground that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of Section 14 of the East Punjab Refugees Rehabilitation (Buildings and Building Sites) Act, 1948. It was pleaded that the Government conveyed the sanction to sell the unsold land adjoining house No. 471-L & R to House No. 535-L & R, Yamuna Nagar, but no such sanction was accorded for the transfer of the disputed land in favour of the plaintiff. The payment of Rs. 1,000/- by the plaintiff was unauthorised. The Government, after going through the matter found that the land, in dispute, was sufficient to make an independent plot and, therefore, the orders for the disposal of the same by way of auction were rightly conveyed to the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala. The trial Court found that admittedly, the defendant State was the owner of the plot, in dispute, and therefore, no decree could be passed to allot the plot, in dispute, to the plaintiff. The plea of the plaintiff that he had acquired the right of easement was also negatived. Consequently, his suit was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Senior Subordinate Judge with enhanced appellate powers, affirmed the said findings of the trial Court and, thus, maintained the decree dismissing the plaintiff's suit passed by it. Dissatisfied with the same, the plaintiff has filed this second appeal in this Court. During the pendency of this appeal, Civil Misc. Application No. 955-C of 1987, was filed on behalf of Krishan Lal, son of Gurran Ditta Mal, under Order 1 Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, for impleading him as a respondent in this appeal. It is stated therein that the plot, in question, was allotted to him and his brother by the competent authority before the issuance of the ad interim injunction by this Court on August 4, 1978. After purchasing the plot in question, in auction and in consequence of affirmation of the sale by the Deputy Commissioner, he and his brother had acquired the exclusive ownership rights in the plot, in question. It was ordered by this Court that the said application be decided along with the appeal. No objection has been raised on behalf of the State of Haryana to the impleading of the applicant Krishan Lal as a respondent to this appeal. Consequently, the said application is allowed, as prayed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that in view of the agreement, Exhibit P-6, the area, in dispute, measuring 45' x 70' was allotted to the plaintiff and on the representation made by State, he also raised certain construction thereon. Therefore, he was entitled to the allotment of the same. In any case argued the learned counsel, the right of easement had been acquired by the plaintiff over the vacant land.