SAVITRI DEVI Vs. HARYANA STATE THROUGH COLLECTOR, HISAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the second appeal of the plaintiff who instituted a suit seeking a declaration to the effect that the order passed by the Administrator, New Mandi Township, Haryana, on 01.03.1972, as regards Plot No.32 situate in Mandi Adampur, Tehsil and District Hisar, is an order that is illegal, null and void and therefore not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. She also sought the consequential relief of permanent injunction against her dispossession from the plot in dispute.

(2.) As per the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter to be referred to as the plaintiff), on 16.01.1968 the aforesaid plot was auctioned, with her having purchased it for a sum of Rs.4000/-, of which Rs.1000/- was paid by her, with the remaining amount to be paid in three installments. It was further contended that the possession of the plot had been given to her and that she continued to remain in such possession. However, allegedly without any notice issued to her as was required, the allotment was cancelled vide the aforesaid order, which consequently was contended to be illegal, null and void and not binding on her rights.

(3.) Notice having been issued in the suit (instituted on 01.02.1983), the respondent-defendant State of Haryana (hereinafter to be referred to as the defendant), appeared and filed a written statement taking preliminary objections on want of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, lack of jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit, its maintainability, lack of cause of action, the suit being pre-mature and the plaintiff being estopped by her own act and conduct from filing the suit. It was further contended that possession of the plot had already been taken by the State through its Naib Tehsildar on 22.03.1972. The aforesaid preliminary objections apart, on the merits of the case set up by the plaintiff, the defendant admitted the allotment of the plot to the plaintiff but thereafter averred that the plaintiff having failed to make the payment of the remaining installments, despite notices issued to her, the impugned order dated 01.03.1972 was passed and possession of the plot was taken.