NARANJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all these regular second appeals, as detailed above, though by different sets of plaintiffs/appellants but have been filed against same set of respondents wherein similar facts are pleaded on similar cause of action and therefore involving common question of law and facts, for the sake of brevity are being taken up and disposed off together through this common judgment. The facts have been drawn from RSA No.3962 of 2012.

(2.) The brief facts that needs to be enumerated are that all the plaintiffs have filed separate suits for declaration to the effect that the they were owners in possession being proprietors (khewatdar) of village Dirba over respective suit properties comprising of residential premises which form part of the land detailed, described and depicted in the headnote of the plaint, situated in the revenue estate of village Dirba, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur as per the revenue record alleging that the defendants have no concern with the suit property as they are neither owners nor in possession of any part of the same. The plaintiffs further challenged mutation order No.7455/B dated 15.12.1998 passed by the then Assistant Collector Grade-I, Sunam whereby the entire land, subject matter of this dispute in various suits, has been ordered to be sanctioned in the name of Nagar Panchayat, Dirba defendant No.5 and alleged that the same was absolutely wrong, illegal, null and void ab-initio as a result of collusion of respondent No.5 with the revenue authorities, alleging further that the same did not have any affect upon the rights of the plaintiffs and further that proceedings initiated under The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (in short, 'the Act') by defendant No.5 against the respective plaintiffs and the impugned orders dated 29.06.2006 passed by defendant No.4 Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sunam for eviction of the plaintiffs from the property in question was absolutely wrong, illegal, null and void; without right or authority, and have sought consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over their respective properties and thus, restraining them from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the same on the basis of any such order passed by the defendants.

(3.) It was upon appearance, the defendants have moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint. In their stand, the defendants have taken multiple objections, the suit being bad for non-service of notice under Section 49 of the Punjab Municipal Act, Civil Court having no jurisdiction and being barred by limitation besides the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the matter.