PAHALWAN SINGH S/O SHRI JAIMAL SINGH Vs. LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF VISHAMBHAR DAS S/O LATE SHRI MEHRU AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Relying upon the judgments reported in AIR 1986 SC 1912, AIR 1996 SC 3445, 2011 AIR SCW 2974, (2015) 4 SCC 60, 2015 (4) DNJ 1544, AIR 1975 Rajasthan 69, 1997(1) WLC 113 and AIR 1998 P and H 254, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that both the courts below have erred in passing the impugned judgment/s. There is a substantial question of law involved in this appeal, since the appellant was given possession of the disputed land and after elapsement of clog period, he was given khatedari rights. Referring several extracts of the evidence, learned counsel has contended that Hon'ble the Supreme Court has already held the provisions of Sections 6A and 6(4) of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Allotment and Sale of Govt. Land to Pong Dam Oustees and their Transferees in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1972') unconstitutional, so application of the law laid down in the case of "Gurdeep Singh v. Special Judge, Pong Dam Oustees Matters, Sriganganagar [RLW 1998(3) Raj. 1526] " cannot be deemed to be having any effect on the merit of the case. It has also been contended that there is an admission regarding execution of attorney and agreement to sale by the son of the executant, which is admissible, so factum of execution of the deeds may not be assailed. Learned counsel has also contended that important question of law have been formulated in the memorandum of appeal, which are dealt in memorandum from (A) to (G), which reads as under:-

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent, while relying upon the judgment delivered in the Gurdeep Singh's case (supra), has contended that the finding of the trial court clearly shows that revenue authorities had taken action against the allottee for ousting him since he had violated the allotment norms and contravened the provisions of Rule 6(4), which was subsequently restored and the land was restored in the name of Mehru. He has further contended that this Court, while deciding Gurdeep Singh's case (supra) that such an agreement is void ab initio and the position may not be of more than a trespasser, who could be ousted. It has been contended that the alleged covenant regarding agreement to sell has not been proved in the trial court, nor the execution of power of attorney is proved. So, there is no important question of law involved in the instant appeal, hence request for admission of the second appeal is not tenable.

(3.) Perused the record and gone through the finding of courts below.