Punjab-Haryana High Court
(O&M) Kewal Krishan vs State Of Punjab Etc on 14 November, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148584
RSA-270-1993 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(102)
RSA-270-1993 (O&M)
Date of decision:- 14.11.2024
Ashok Kumar (Since deceased) through LRs and others ...Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Mr. Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate, with
Ms. Saachi Mahajan, Advocate
for the appellants.
Ms. Amrita Garg, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
...
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (Oral)
1. Appellant-plaintiff is in second appeal before this Court assailing the
judgment and decree dated 06.01.1993, passed by the learned Additional
District Judge, Faridkot.
2. Pleaded case of the plaintiff is that he was in possession of a plot, that
he had inherited in khasra No.570, located at Chowk Joginder Singh, Moga,
(for short "the disputed property") and he built four shops on the plot. The
property was entered in the name of the Church Authorities in the revenue
record, who claimed to be its owners. The plaintiff filed a suit against them,
which was decreed. General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga, also filed
applications under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148584
RSA-270-1993 (O&M) -2-
Recovery) Act, 1973 (for short "the PP Act") which were dismissed. Claiming
that he is the owner and in possession of the disputed property and that the
defendants have no right title, or interest, plaintiff filed a suit for declaration.
3. Upon notice, suit has been contested by the defendants by filing a
written statement, wherein they have contested the claim of the plaintiff and
asserted that he is in illegal possession. It has been submitted that the shops
including site comprising in Khasra No.6874/6543, was acquired by the Punjab
Roadways along with some other area from the District Board, Ferozepur, for
an amount of Rs.42,200/-, and asserted that they are the owners. Defendants
admitted the filing of application under the PP Act, but submitted that it was
withdrawn with permission to initiate proceedings afresh. An objection was
taken that the suit is not maintainable. On the basis of the pleading of the
parties, Trial Court framed issues and after the parties led evidence and were
heard, Trial Court by judgment and decree dated 21.08.1989, decreed the suit.
Defendants filed an appeal and by judgment dated 06.01.1993, learned
Additional District Judge, reversed the findings recorded by the Trial Court and
accepted the appeal. Plaintiff has approached this Court in the above backdrop.
4. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their respective
submissions, besides examining the record with their able assistance.
5. The sole issue, which arises for consideration, in the instant second
appeal is as to whether the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the
property in dispute.
6. Besides ocular and documentary evidence, the appellant-plaintiff had
staked title over the disputed property on the basis of a demarcation report
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148584
RSA-270-1993 (O&M) -3-
dated 08.07.1984, Ex. P-5, prepared by Shri Mukhtiar Singh, PW-2, Naib
Tehsildar, Fazilka, who was posted as a Kanoongo in the Circle. In his
testimony, Mukhtiar Singh, PW-2, had deposed that the plaintiff was in
possession and had constructed shops on the disputed property, which were
depicted in the site plan, Ex. P-1. Shri Gurmail Singh, Patwari, DW-4,
produced by the respondents, in his cross-examination, also stated this fact.
Malkiat Singh, DW-1, Building Clerk, has admitted that the disputed property
falls outside the boundary wall of the premises of Punjab Roadways, Moga.
Butta Singh, PW-3, Road Inspector, has conceded in his cross-examination that
khasra No.570, was never the part of the property of the defendants. A perusal
of the ex parte judgment and decree dated 11.03.1985, passed by the learned
Additional Senior Sub Judge, Moga, Ex. P-2, also shows that the plaintiff had
succeeded in the civil suit filed against the Church and he was held to be owner
of the property by way of adverse possession.
7. In first appeal, learned Additional District Judge had, however,
discarded the demarcation report, Ex. P-5, on the ground that the defendants
were not associated when the property was inspected. In order to determine the
actual position at the spot, this Court by way of an interim order passed on
09.07.2024, directed the Deputy Commissioner, to appoint two senior Revenue
Officers to conduct a demarcation after notice to both the parties and to submit
a report as to whether the disputed property falls in khasra No.570 or 571. In
deference to the order passed by this Court, a compliance affidavit was filed
along with a copy of the report, translated version of which is reproduced
hereunder:-
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148584
RSA-270-1993 (O&M) -4-
"TRANSLATION FROM PUNAJBI TO ENGLISH
Today, in pursuance of the order of Hon'ble Court of Deputy
Commissioner-cum-Collector, District Revenue Officer, Moga vide letter
No.1902/sk/dated: 11.10.2024 and office of Naib Tehsildar, Moga, vide its
order No.1321/Reader dated: 16.10.2024 regarding demarcation of
khasra no.570-571, I reached at the spot at khasra No.570-571 at the
time already given to the parties, where the officers of Punjab Roadways
(Transport) and parties concerning Khasra No.570 and 571 came
present. Circle Patwari along with record came present at the spot. From
the persons present at the spot, inquiry was made regarding Thadde i.e.
permanent points (Marks). In the north of the GT Road towards Eastern
Side at the clashing (colliding) point in the street, base line was drawn.
Along the road in the North khasra numbers were ascertained/identified
at the spot. According to which, the southern side of the Khasra No.570
along the road is 10 karam complete, which falls under Khasra No.570, in
dispute. There is passage to the Bus Stand, Joginder Complex and
Government Residential Kothis (Accommodations) constructed in Khasra
No.571. Area/property in dispute was ascertained identified along the
road towards the southern side of the Khasra No.570 and 571, from
where it came out there are shops constructed in Khasra No.570 and 10
karam side of the same towards the road is accurate/correct at the spot
and Khasra No. 571 along the road 54 karam southern side along 570
there is passage to enter/leading to Bus Stand, after this there is Joginder
Complex and after this towards the Western Side there are Government
Residential Kothis (Accommodations) constructed. As per spot,
Area/property in dispute bearing/falling under Khasra No. 570 is
reported/verified.
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148584
RSA-270-1993 (O&M) -5-
Roadways:- Manpreet Singh (TTI),
Satnam Singh (Duty clerk)
SD-
(Inderjit)
Kanugo 25.10.2024
Deepak Ghai (Nazar) Gurjant Singh
Balwinder Singh (T.M)
Sd/-
Sukhdev Singh Chowkidar
Sd/-
Rishi Sood S/o Ashok Kumar
Sd/-
Sukhmander Singh S/o Sarban Singh
Sd/-
Satish Grover S/o Amir Chand
Sd/-
Poonam Sood W/o Ashok Kumar
Sd/-
Rachna Sood W/o Anoop Sood S/o
Kunal Sharma S/o Jaswinder Kumar
Sd/-
Naresh Kumar S/o Balbir Chand
Sd/-
Garima Sood D/o Anoop Sood
Sd/-
Neha Sood D/o Anoop Sood
Sd/-
Gaurav Sood S/o Ashok Kumar"
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148584
RSA-270-1993 (O&M) -6-
8. A perusal of the above reproduced report shows that the property in
dispute has been verified to be a part of khasra No.570, and it has been reported
that some shops were constructed on the plot. This report has been prepared
after associating the plaintiff as well as the officials of the defendants and bears
their signatures. With this report, the entire controversy has been put to rest and
the plaintiff has to be held to be owner and in possession of the disputed
property. Findings to the contrary, recorded by the learned Additional District
Judge, therefore, cannot be sustained and are liable to be reversed.
9. As a result of the aforegoing discussion, the judgment and decree
passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot, is hereby set aside,
and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court decreeing the suit, is
restored.
10. Appeal is allowed with no order as to cost.
11. As the main appeal has been decided, all pending applications stand
disposed of.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
JUDGE
14.11.2024
Pardeep
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable Yes
6 of 6
