STATE OF HARYANA Vs. AVTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendants' second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff- respondent has been decreed as owner in possession of the suit property and the defendants have been restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff and have also restrained them from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property.

(2.) AS per the averments made in the plaint, the house in question was transferred by the Government of India vide office letter dated 30.6.1958 for a sum of Rs. 214/- to the plaintiff-respondent. It is the case of the plaintiff-respondent that he made the requisite payment. Rather an excess amount of Rs. 46/- was paid by him. It was further claimed that even after the payment of the entire sale consideration, the sale certificate was not issued. Eventually, an application dated 4.3.1994 was made by the plaintiff to the Tehsildar (Sales) Ambala for allotment of the title deed of the suit property but no action was taken on the said application. Another application dated 11.3.1994 was forwarded to the Settlement Officer (Records) Jaisalmer House, New Delhi but to no effect. It was further stated that in the month of December, 2001, notice dated 19.12.2001 was issued by the appellant-defendant No. 3 to the plaintiff for purchasing the suit property on Government rate. The plaintiff approached defendant No. 3 who gave him a letter dated 31.1.2002 to the effect that the allotment of the suit property in his favour had been cancelled vide order dated 11.4.1969. It was further alleged that the said order was passed in a very casual manner without any enquiry from the record whether the amount of sale consideration was paid or not. It was further stated that the plaintiff filed an application before the D.R.O.-cum- Settlement Officer (Sales) Yamuna Nagar which was dismissed vide order dated 19.12.2002 on the ground that order dated 11.4.1969 was passed long time back. It was alleged in the suit that the plaintiff was owner and in actual physical possession of the suit property which was purchased by him for a valuable sale consideration and the defendants had no right, title or authority to dispossess him from the suit property and the impugned orders dated 11.4.1969 and 19.12.2002 were illegal, null and void. The plaintiff requested the defendants to acknowledge him as an absolute owner in possession of the suit land and to desist from their illegal activities but to no avail. Hence, the suit.

(3.) THE appeal filed by defendants No. 2 and 3 challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court was also dismissed by the District Judge, Yamuna Nagar, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 19.4.2007. While dismissing the appeal, the Lower Appellate Court recorded a finding of fact that Avtar Singh had deposited the amount as stipulated and had become owner of the property on the day on which he deposited the fifth instalment in the year 1962 by virtue of the terms and conditions of the allotment order (Ex.P-1). It was also recorded that the impugned order dated 11.4.1969 passed by the Managing Officer (P), Jalandhar was arbitrary, illegal and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff as no notice was served upon the allottee before arriving at the conclusion that the outstanding instalments have not been paid and therefore, the said order was non est which could always be ignored.