Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Sat Parkash Etc on 8 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047582
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:047582
161
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 1009 of 1993 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 08.04.2024
Custodian General-cum-Chief Settlement Commissioner,
Haryana Rehabilitation Department, Haryana and others
.......... Appellants
Versus
Sat Parkash Sanghi and others
.......... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Chetan Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
for appellant Nos. 1 to 3-contesting defendant Nos. 2 to 4.
None for appellant No. 4-contesting defendant No. 1
(Union of India)
Mr. Ashish Sanghi, Advocate
for respondent Nos. 1 to 7-plaintiffs.
Mr. Gurbachan Singh Bhatia, Advocate
for respondent No. 9-proforma defendant No. 5
(Punjab Wakf Board).
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)
By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the
judgments & decrees dated 18.09.1989 & 08.01.1992, passed by the learned
Senior Sub Judge, Narnaul and the learned Additional District Judge,
Narnaul, respectively, whereby the suit for permanent injunction filed at the
instance of plaintiffs (respondent Nos. 1 to 8 herein / contesting respondents)
with prayer for restraining the appellants-defendants, besides respondent No.
9/proforma defendant No. 5-Punjab Wakf Board from interfering in their
possession over the property in question, stands decreed.
[2] Briefly stating, respondent Nos. 1 to 8-plaintiffs filed a suit for
permanent injunction with a prayer for restraining the appellants as well as
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047582
respondent No. 9-Punjab Wakf Board from interfering in their possession
over the suit property, comprising in Khasra No. 1993/1, Khewat No. 479,
Khatoni No. 723 measuring 1 bigha pukhta situated in Narnaul. It was
pleaded that the suit land vested with the Punjab Wakf Board and the same
was taken on lease by the plaintiffs vide rent note dated 26.06.1965 and
since then, they were in long, settled and undisturbed possession thereof,
whereas the defendants were trying to interfere in their peaceful possession
without there being any authority, hence the suit.
[3] In response, a detailed written statement was filed on behalf of
the appellants, while submitting that the Punjab Wakf Board had nothing to
do with the property in question as the same vested in custodian being
Evacuee Property, which was owned by one Kherayat Shah, who migrated
to Pakistan. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 18.09.1989
decreed the suit in favour of plaintiffs, while holding them to be in
possession of the suit property being tenants under the Punjab Wakf Board.
[4] Aggrieved thereof, the appellants filed first appeal, which came
to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 08.01.1992 passed by the
learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, thereby upholding the decree
dated 18.09.1989 for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs.
[5] Impugning the aforesaid judgments & decrees passed by both
the Courts below, learned State Counsel representing appellant Nos. 1 to 3
vehemently submits that the relevant evidence available on record in the
shape of revenue entries, showing the suit land being originally owned by
one Kherayat Shah were totally ignored by the Courts below and thus, the
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047582
findings recorded to the effect that the suit land vested with the Punjab Wakf
Board were illegal and perverse, hence, the appeal was liable to be allowed.
[6] On the other hand, Mr. Ashish Sanghi, Advocate, representing
respondent Nos. 1 to 7-plaintiffs submits that there has been a TA-dawan
lease deed dated 26.06.1965 in favour of the plaintiffs from the Punjab Wakf
Board under which they were holding possession over the land in question
and thus, the suit was rightly decreed in their favour.
[7] Simultaneously, Mr. Gurbachan Singh Bhatia, Advocate,
representing respondent No. 9-Punjab Wakf Board, submits that the land
was rightly recorded to be owned by the Punjab Wakf Board by both the
Courts below upon appreciation of evidence available on record, which
warrants no interference.
[8] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the paper-book as well as relevant record.
[9] A perusal of records shows that the plaintiffs filed a simplicitor
suit for permanent injunction claiming themselves to be in possession of the
suit property based on lease agreement dated 26.06.1965 executed by Punjab
Wakf Board. Besides it, the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit
property was duly proved on record in terms of the relevant revenue entries
pertaining to land in question, followed by concurrent findings of facts
recorded by both the Courts below in this regard. Moreover, the plaintiffs
were found to be in long settled undisturbed possession over the suit
property and thus, grant of decree by both the Courts below in their favour
as regards permanent injunction, restraining the defendants / appellants from
interfering in their peaceful possession, was in no way illegal or uncalled for.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047582
Besides it, the observations made by the Courts below as regards inter se
dispute between the two sets of defendants i.e. "Custodian" and "Punjab
Wakf Board", regarding the title over the suit property, the finding recorded
by the Courts below cannot be said to be final and conclusive, especially in
the present suit for permanent injunction filed at the instance of plaintiffs,
who claim themselves to be the lessee over the same. In these
circumstances, the defendants inter se shall be at liberty to invoke their
remedies as per law so as to establish with whom the ownership of the suit
property vests. Upon adjudication regarding the aforesaid context, the
parties shall be at liberty to avail their remedies as per law, as regards
remedy about restoration of possession. In the meanwhile, dispossession of
the plaintiffs-respondent Nos. 1 to 8 shall remain stayed except in due course
of law.
[10] Disposed off accordingly.
[11] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed off.
April 08, 2024 ( HARKESH MANUJA )
'dk kamra' JUDGE
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
