Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bimla Devi And Others vs Balwan Singh And Others on 30 November, 2023
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:153395
ESA No.32 of 2023(O&M) -1- 2023:PHHC:153395
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
ESA No.32 of 2023(O&M)
Date of Order:30.11.2023
Bimla Devi and others
.Appellants
Versus
Balwan Singh and others ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate
for M.C., Rohtak.
Mr. Jaspal Singh Pannu, AAG, Haryana
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J
1. The third party objector assails the correctness of the dismissal
of their objection petition by the Executing Court which in appeal has been
affirmed by the first appellate court.
2. In order to comprehend the issue involved in the present case,
the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
3. In order to provide roof to landless Schedule Caste and
Backward Class residents, the Gram Panchayat Kanheli, gifted 22 kanals
and 17 marlas land by carving out plots on 09.03.1994, to enable them to
construct their houses.
4. These poor allottees were forced to file a civil suit on
27.09.2008, for grant of decree of possession of the land gifted to them by
the Gram Panchayat. In the aforesaid suit, the State of Haryana, Gram
Panchayat Kanheli and Municipal Corporation, Rohtak were impleaded as
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:153395
ESA No.32 of 2023(O&M) -2- 2023:PHHC:153395
the defendants. The aforesaid suit was decreed on 03.04.2013, with the
following observations:-
"It is ordered that the suit of the plaintiffs succeeds and
the same is hereby decreed with costs. The possession of
the land in question gifted to the plaintiffs be delivered to
the plaintiffs and the defendants are, hereby, restrained
from utilizing the land in question for any other purpose
and from allotting the same to any other person.
Further, it is declared that the resolution dated
18.05.2008 passed by the defendant no.2 is illegal and
void and not binding upon the plaintiffs."
5. The aforesaid judgment and decree was upheld in appeal on
15.10.2016. Thereafter, the aforesaid decree holders are trying to implement
the decree. This court has been informed that the decree passed by the trial
court was also upheld in the Regular Second Appeal and the same has
become final.
6. The petitioners claim to have purchased plots from the
colonizers. They objected to the implementation of the decree on the ground
that in the sale deeds executed in their favour, the adjoining land is shown as
a passage and the sewerage line has been laid at that place. This fact is
strongly disputed by the learned counsel representing the Municipal
Corporation, Rohtak.
7. The learned counsel representing the appellants contends that
the right to passage is a fundamental right and the appellants and their
vendors were using the same for the last 40 years. He further submits that
the decree holders are being allotted plots measuring 100 square yards
instead of 3 marlas plot i.e. little more than 90 square yards plot.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:153395
ESA No.32 of 2023(O&M) -3- 2023:PHHC:153395
Municipal Corporation, Rohtak, submits that the landless persons were
allotted 3 marla plots and possession has already been allotted qua 3 marla
plots each.
9. This court has considered the submissions of the learned
counsel representing the parties.
10. The appellants claim that the adjoining property to their
residential houses is being used as a passage for quite some time. The
Executing Court has found that the aforesaid passage came into existence
only after the gift deeds were executed in favour of the decree holders. The
learned counsel representing the appellants failed to draw the attention of the
court to the evidence to prove that the passage was in existence before the
gift deeds were executed.
11. With reference to the second argument of the learned counsel
representing the appellants, it may be noted here that the Municipal
Corporation vehemently denies laying down the sewerage line or laying
pavers in the alleged passage.
12. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and discussion, no ground
to interfere is made out.
13. Dismissed.
14. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
November 30, 2023 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :YES/NO
Whether reportable :YES/NO
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:153395
3 of 3
