MAIN PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 18.2.2005 by which the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed and against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Yamuna Nagar dated 3.4.2006 by which the appeal filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed and judgment and decree of the trial Court was upheld.

(2.) TERSELY , the plaintiffs filed a suit against State of Haryana and others seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering in their possession or ousting them illegally or forcibly from the house and shop constructed on the land measuring 92 Kanals 1 Marla bearing Khewat No. 226 min Khatauni No. 293 min Khasra No. 231/2, situated in village Tajewala HB No. 3, Tehsil Chhachhrauli District Yamuna Nagar. The plaintiffs have claimed that they have constructed their houses in the suit land and are in possession for more than 50 years without any interruption. Their possession being hostile and peaceful, had matured in adverse possession to which State of Haryana had never objected to and therefore, entries in the revenue record are illegal and erroneous. In the written statement, it was pleaded by the defendant that appellants have constructed their houses about 3-4 years back without the permission of the State of Haryana for which the Authorities have filed a suit against the plaintiff in the Court of Collector, Yamuna Nagar under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 in which the Collector, Jagadhari had passed the order of their eviction vide orders Ex.D2 and Ex.D3 and their appeals were dismissed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala on 3.12.2002. The said order of eviction has not been challenged by the plaintiffs which had attained finality by efflux of time. It is also the case of the defendant that plaintiffs have deliberately concealed the fact from the Court that the appeal filed by them before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala has already been dismissed on 3.12.2002. On these premises, it was claimed that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any discretionary relief of injunction.

(3.) ON the other hand, Ms. Mamta Singla Talwar, AAG Haryana has contended that plea of adverse possession is not available to the plaintiffs in view of a decision of this Court in the case of Bhim Singh and others v. Zile Singh and others, 2006(3) RCR(Civil) 97 (P&H) in which it has been held that when the owners seek possession of the immovable property, the plea of adverse possession can be raised in defence but the relief of declaration that the plaintiff has become the owner, cannot be granted on the basis of adverse possession.