[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hazara Singh vs Satnam Kaur on 6 March, 2026
Author: Pankaj Jain
Bench: Pankaj Jain
RSA-1157-1994 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
102
RSA-1157-1994 (O&M)
Reserved on : 12.02.2026
Pronounced on : 06.03.2026
Uploaded on : 06.03.2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No
Whether full judgment is pronounced? Yes
Hazara Singh ...... Appellant
versus
Satnam Kaur ...... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present: Mr. Jitender Singh Dadwal, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate
for the respondent.
****
PANKAJ JAIN, J.
CM-6317-C-2025
Application for bringing on record LRs of the deceased-
appellant Hazara Singh, is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Amended memo of parties is taken on record.
Main case
1. Defendants are in appeal.
2. Plaintiff filed suit for possession of a plot measuring 98 sq.
yds. as detailed out in the plaint.
3. As per plaintiff, she is owner of the property in dispute
having purchased the same from Rehabilitation Department for a
consideration of Rs.4500/- in an auction. Plaintiff claims that defendant
is in illegal possession of the plot.
4. Defendant contested the suit denying the ownership of the
plaintiff. As per the defendant, there was an earlier lis between the
parties. In the said lis also, plaintiff claimed herself to be owner in
possession of the same suit property. Hence, subsequent suit is not
1 of 6
RSA-1157-1994 (O&M)
maintainable. Defendant also questioned competence of Gurmit Kaur to
file the present suit as attorney of Satnam Kaur.
5. Suit filed by the plaintiff was put to trial by the Court of
First Instance framing following issues:-
"1) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present
form?OPD.
2) Whether Smt. Gurmit Kaur is competent and has been
authorised to file the present suit?OPP.
3) Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of
court fee and jurisdiction?OPP.
4) Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the
present suit?OPD.
5) Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit property?
OPP.
6) Relief."
6. Issue No.1 was given up by the defendant. While deciding
issue No.2, the Trial Court found that the power of attorney Ex.P6 in
favour of Gurmit Kaur stands proved and thus, she is in her authority to
file the present suit. Deciding issue No.3, the Court found that the
plaintiff successfully proved sale certificate Ex.PW-4/X issued by
Department of Rehabilitation. As per which, the property in question
stands sold in favour of plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.4,500/-.
7. On issue No.4 and 5, the Court found that as per plaintiff,
she purchased the suit property in auction and the malkhana possession
was delivered to her. Defendant on the other hand claims to be tenant
under Rehabilitation Department. In order to prove her tenancy,
defendant proved Ex.D1 i.e. receipt issued by department with respect to
payment of Rs.100/-. The same was proved by examining Mukhtiar
Singh DW1. As per which, Rs.100/- was paid by defendant as rent. The
Court however found that from the contents of receipt Ex.D1, Rs.100/-
2 of 6
RSA-1157-1994 (O&M)
was paid by defendant as damages. Apart from one solitary receipt,
there is no other document on record to prove tenancy of the defendant.
The Court of First Instance accordingly decreed the suit filed by the
plaintiff. The aforesaid findings recorded by the Court of First Instance
stand affirmed by the Lower Appellate Court.
8. Counsel for the appellant while assailing the findings
recorded by the Courts below submits that the Courts below have
wrongly given undue weight to the sale certificate Ex.PW4/X. He
submits that the certificate bears different dates. He contends that as per
statement of PW2 Gurdish Singh, Halka Patwari the sale certificate was
shown to him by the plaintiff in the year 1983, whereas the same was
issued only on 04.11.1987. He submits that the sale certificate itself
being doubtful, cannot be relied upon. It has been further contended that
the Courts below failed to appreciate that the defendant who proved his
tenancy over the suit property by proving Ex.D1, which when read in
the light of testimony of DW1, Mukhtair Singh proves that defendant
paid rent of Rs.100/- to the Department of Rehabilitation and was thus
tenant over the suit property under the department.
9. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone
through the records of the case.
10. Though, counsel for the appellant has tried to caste doubt
over the document of title relied upon by the Courts below as
propounded by the plaintiff Ex.PW/X, but the discrepancy alleged in
fact does not exist. It has come on record that the plot in dispute was put
to public auction on 19.12.1983. Plaintiff was successful in the auction
and purchased the suit property for a consideration of 4,500/-. The sale
3 of 6
RSA-1157-1994 (O&M)
certificate Ex.PW4/X was issued on 04.11.1987. There is thus no
discrepancy. 19.12.1983 is the date of public auction. 04.11.1987 is the
date of issuance of sale certificate. That apart, counsel for the appellant
is not in a position to dispute that there was a previous lis between the
parties before Rehabilitation Department. Plaintiff succeeded in the
same. Thus, so far as title of the plaintiff over the suit property is
concerned, the same stands proved and the concurrent finding recorded
by the Courts below need to be affirmed.
11. Possession of the defendant is not in dispute. After all
plaintiff has filed suit for possession. Defendant claims his lawful
possession as tenant under the Rehabilitation Department on the strength
of receipt Ex.D1. Apart from the said receipt, there is no other
document.
12. The property in question is a Package Deal Property. The
same is governed by the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act,
1976. Section 2(5) defines unauthorized occupation as under:-
"(5) 'unauthorized occupation' a person shall be deemed to be
in unauthorized occupation of any package deal property-
(a) where he has, whether before or after the commencement
of this Act, entered into possession thereof otherwise than
under and in pursuance of any allotment, lease or grant, or
(b) where he, notwithstanding anything contained in para (a),
has whether before or after the commencement of this Act,
entered into possession, thereof in pursuance of an order
obtained by him by means of fraud, false representation or
concealment of any material facts; or
(c) where he, being an allottee, lessee or grantee, has by
reason of the determination or cancellation of his allotment,
lease or grant in accordance with the terms in that behalf
therein contained, ceased, whether before, or after the
commencement of this Act, to be entitled to occupy or hold
such package deal property: or
4 of 6
RSA-1157-1994 (O&M)
(d) where any person authorized to occupy any package deal
property, has, whether before or after the commence of this
Act -
(i) sublet, in contravention of the terms of allotment, lease or
grant, without the permission of the State Government or of
any other authority competent to permit such sub-letting, the
whole or any part of such package deal property; or
(ii) otherwise acted in contravention of any of the terms,
express or implied, under which he is authorized to occupy
such package deal property. -
Explanation- For the purpose of sub-clause (a), a person shall
not merely by reason of the fact that he has paid any rent be
deemed to have entered into possession as allottee lessee or
grantee."
13. In order to prove that his possession is authorized, the
defendant is required to prove that he is in possession pursuant to any
allotment, lease or grant.
14. In the present case, defendant has not produced any
allotment, lease or grant. The only document that he relies upon is
receipt, that too, shows that the same is recovery of damages pursuant to
Section 5 of the 1976 Act which reads as under:-
"5. Power to recover damages:
Where a Tehsildar (Sales) or Naib Tehsildar (Sales) is
satisfied that any person is or has at any time been in
unauthorized occupation of any package deal property, then,
without prejudice to any other action which may be taken
against that person, the Tehsildar (Sales) or Naib Tehsildar
(Sales) may, having regard to such principles of assessment of
damages as may be prescribed, assess the damages on account
of the use and occupation of such package deal property and
may, by order, require that person to pay the damages within
such period and in such installments as may be specified in
the order:
Provided that no order shall be made against any person under
this section until after the issue of a notice in writing to the
person calling upon him to show cause within such time as
5 of 6
RSA-1157-1994 (O&M)
may be specified in the notice, why such order should not be
made and until his objections, if any and any evidence he may
produce in support of the same, have been considered by the
Tehsildar (Sales) or Naib Tehsildar (Sales), as the case may
be."
15. In view of above, this Court finds that merely on the
strength of testimony of DW1, document Ex.D1 cannot be raised to the
status of allotment, lease or grant. The same is a receipt exhibiting
recovery of damages. The defendant neither being allottee, nor lessee or
grantee, his possession over the land in question is that of an
unauthorized occupant. The suit of the plaintiff has been rightly decreed
by the Courts below on the basis of title.
16. Finding no merits in the present appeal, the same is ordered
to be dismissed.
17. Since the main case has been decided, pending
miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.
(PANKAJ JAIN)
JUDGE
06.03.2026
Dinesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
6 of 6
