SURGYANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legal representatives of deceased Kanmal defendant have filed this appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur on 8th February, 1972 decreeing the suit of the Union of India declaring the disputed property to be that of the railways.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this suit are in a nut -shell as follows: A plot of land measuring 244 Sq. gaj. within the railway boundaries near Sainik Piao on Kutchery road in the town of Jodhpur was purchased by Banshidhar defendant and a Patta of that plot was issued by the Patta Committee to Shri Binshidhar on 31 -10 1955. Binshidair than transferred this plot of land by executing a sale -deed on 17 -1 -1958 in favour of Shri Hardutt Sarswat who in his turn further sold the said plot of land to Shri Kanmal Bhati by a registered sale -deed dated 23 -7 -1958 Shri Kanmal started making constructions on this plot This was protested by the railway authorities. It transpires that the Railways served the Municipal Council, Jodhpur with notice but the matter remained under consideration of the Municipal Council, Jodhpur and the dispute raised by the Railways was not decided by the said authority The Railway authorities claimed the disputed plot of land as their property because according to the plans which were in the possession of the Railways, this plot was shown within the railway boundary. While putting its plans before the Court, the Union of India stated that the said plot of land was acquired by the former State of Jodhpur and was handed over to the Railway as is clear from various letters and the plans possessed by the Railways. According to the plaintiff after the land was acquired by the Government of the erstwhile State of Jodhpur for being transferred to the Jodhpur State Railways a boundary wall was constructed and it is averred that the disputed land definitely falls within the railway boundary which under the provisions of the Railways Act automatically becomes the railway property. The Patta Ex. A/1 granted by the Jodhpur Municipal Council to Shri Banshidhar according to the plaintiff, was illegal as issued without any authority and therefore did not transfer any title in the land to Shri Banshidhar. It was further averred that this type of transfer of land did not pass any right, title and interest in the property in favour of Banshidhar and the subsequent transferees Shri Hardurt Satswat and Shri Kanmal. it was therefore, prayed by the Union of India that a decree be pissed against the defendants declaring the disputed plot of land to be that of the railways and also claimed mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 50/. p.m for the illegal use and occupation of the land by the defendants.

(3.) DEFENDANTS denied the claim of the Railways and came out with a plea that the Patta Committee constituted under the Patta Act had authority to transfer the land to Shri Banshidhar by issuing a Patta and since Banshidhar was the owner of the land, he could legally transfer the ownership in the land to his transferee Hardutt Sarawat who in his turn could further transfer the ownership of the plot to Kanmal.