Munsab Khan (Through Lrs) vs Gaon Sabha Mandoli And Anr.
2014 Latest Caselaw 1039 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         RSA No.148/2012

%                                                    25th February, 2014

MUNSAB KHAN (THROUGH LRS)            ......Appellants
                Through: Mr. N.P. Singh, Advocate.


                          VERSUS


GAON SABHA MANDOLI AND ANR.               ...... Respondents
                Through: Mr. D. Rajeshwar Rao, Advocate.



CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA


To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.           This Regular Second Appeal is filed against the judgment of the

first appellate Court dated 16.2.2012 dismissing the appeal filed by the

appellants/plaintiffs by refusing to condone the delay of approximately sixty

days.

2.           The only ground for filing of the first appeal with delay was of

the illness of the appellant no.2, however, no proof of illness of the appellant

no.2 was filed and therefore the appeal was dismissed as barred by time.
RSA No.148/2012                                                  Page 1 of 3
 3.           I may note that even on merits, prima facie the appellants have

no case on merits, because, the suit for injunction was dismissed by the trial

Court by giving valid reason that the appellants were not the owners and in

cultivatory physical possession of the land bearing khasra no.34/10/1 (2-10)

situated in revenue estate of village Mandoli, Shahdara, Delhi admeasuring 2

bighas and 10 biswas inasmuch as the owner of the land was Gaon Sabha

post the consolidation proceedings in the village. Trial Court has held that

once the appellants/plaintiffs have failed to show that they are the owners

and proceedings before the revenue authorities are going on in order for the

appellants to establish their ownership rights, the suit cannot lie.

4.           To the findings of the trial Court, I would add that in view of

Section 44 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of

Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') civil court

does not have jurisdiction with respect to consolidation proceedings which

achieve finality under the Act. Therefore, once in view of the consolidation

proceedings the appellants are not shown to be the owners, civil court cannot

come to a finding against the decision of the authorities under the Act and

which is final and which decision cannot be changed in the civil court as per

Section 44 of the Act.


RSA No.148/2012                                                    Page 2 of 3
 5.           In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and the

same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.



FEBRUARY 25, 2014                             VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne