BHUP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs are in second appeal.

(2.) THE case of plaintiffs, in brief, is that suit land measuring 100 Kanals situated at village Farrukh Nagar was given to their father Attar Singh in the year 1966 under the "Grow More Food Programme". He was given the option to purchase that land after reclamation @ Rs. 120/- per acre by making the payment in installments. Out of 100 Kanals, land measuring 47 Kanals was 'Bhor' and 53 Kanals was 'Banjar Qadim', but with the dint of their labour and hard work, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs reclaimed the land and the same was recorded in the jamabandi for the year 1981-1982 as 54 Kanals Chahi. Original allottee Attar Singh had died and after his death, the plaintiffs are in actual physical possession of the aforesaid land. The plaintiffs and their father had always been ready and willing to pay the sale consideration and for that purpose, requested the officers of the respondent several times to permit them to deposit requisite amount but they showed their inability to take the sale price on the ground that the names of the plaintiffs were not entered in the revenue record.

(3.) IN the written statement, it was alleged that Civil Suit No. 1106 of 1980 was instituted only to the extent that the State be restrained from auctioning the land in question and from dispossessing the plaintiffs except in due course of law but they have not been declared owners as such. Therefore, the decision of the earlier suit can not be taken to their disadvantage. It was further alleged that land in question was a part of inferior evacuee land which was purchased by the State Govt. from the Central Govt. in the year 1960 and was leased out to Harijans as well as members of Backward class and Ex- service men for a period of 10 years according to the instructions of the Punjab Govt. dated 29.8.1961 and 23.1.1964. The allotment of 70 plots of the land was approved by the Deputy Commissioner on 20.9.1962 but name of the father of the plaintiffs did not figure in the list approved by Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon on 20.9.1962, therefore, their possession is unauthorised. It was further mentioned that the application of the father of the plaintiffs for permanent transfer of the suit land was rejected by other Additional Settlement Officer (Sale). The revision petition filed by the father of the plaintiffs before Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana was also rejected. It was denied that the plaintiffs have reclaimed the suit land by spending huge amount. The defendants had also raised objections about the jurisdiction of the Court and sought dismissal of the suit on the ground of res judicata and had claimed that the suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC.