Punjab-Haryana High Court
Radhey Shyam vs M.C. And Others on 6 May, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062155
RSA No.2912 of 1994 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.2912 of 1994 (O&M)
Date of Order:06.05.2024
Radhey Shyam and another
.Appellants
Versus
Municipal Committee, Hassanpur and others
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate
for the respondents.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J
1. In this Regular Second Appeal, the defendants assail the
correctness of the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court which in
turn has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.
2. After having heard the learned counsel representing the parties,
this court is of the opinion that the matter is required to be remitted back to
the First Appellate Court to decide the matter afresh. Hence, the detailed
facts are not required to be noticed.
3. The Municipal Committee, Hassanpur, filed a suit for the grant
of decree of declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction
claiming that previously the property was part of village Hassanpur which
was regulated/managed by the Gram Panchayat. Subsequently, the area of
Panchayat came within the municipal limits. The entire dispute is with
regard to the land measuring 7 marlas, which is claimed to be a
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062155
passage/thoroughfare. The Municipal Committee claims that the
consolidation authorities have erred in allotting the defendants 8 kanals and
7 marlas land in lieu of their land measuring 1 bigha and 12 biswas
comprised in old khasra no.1160.
4. The defendants, on the other hand, claim that the aforesaid land
has been allotted to them by the consolidation authorities.
5. The trial court dismissed the suit, whereas the First Appellate
Court has decreed the suit.
6. Upon careful perusal of the judgment, it is evident that the First
Appellate Court has not recorded any reason before coming to a conclusion
that the defendants in lieu of their land measuring 1 bigha and 12 biswas
were entitled to 8 kanals land and not 8 kanals and 7 marlas.
7. The learned counsel representing the appellants has submitted
that the order passed by the consolidation authorities became final and
therefore, the civil court cannot go into the aforesaid issue.
8. This court is unable to agree with the contentions raised by the
learned counsel representing the appellants. The authorities under the East
Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and prevention of Fragmentation) Act,
1948, do not have jurisdiction to decide the question of title or ownership.
These authorities are required to consolidate the holdings of the owner
which may be in separate parcels. They are required to allocate the land of
the value which is commensurate to the holdings of the owner before
consolidation. Hence, the Civil Court jurisdiction is not excluded.
9. However, as already noticed, the vital question i.e the
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062155
entitlement of the defendants to allotment of 8 kanals land and not 8 kanals
and 7 marlas is required to be examined by the Civil Court before decreeing
the plaintiff's suit because the dispute is with regard to a thoroughfare,
therefore, the court could have appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect
the site and get the property demarcated.
10. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the judgment of the First
Appellate Court is set aside while remitting the matter back to the First
Appellate Court to decide the matter afresh.
11. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before
the First Appellate Court, on 30.05.2024.
12. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
May 06, 2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :YES/NO
Whether reportable :YES/NO
3 of 3
