Important point
When the land vested in the State Government having been acquired under a notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act, the plaintiff had no right, title or interest in it, the courts below were wrong in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff for injunction against the Trust from interferring with his possession.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Sections 4 and 6—Suit filed by plaintiff respondent for permanent injunction restraining appellant Trust from demolishing the construction made by him—Plaintiff had constructed a residential house wherein he was residing alongwith his family members—According to the plaintiff he alongwith his brother had purchased the property a registered sale deed for valuable consideration—Trust contending that the disputed land was acquired by the State Government by issuing notifications under the Land Acquisition Act—An award was declared for the said land in 1970—Land of plaintiff was covered by new Khasra No. 235 which had been validly acquired and was covered by the award—Award also gives names of plaintiff and his brother as the persons who had made unauthorised construction—Plaintiff failed to prove that he was the owner of property, the said property remained in his possession and that the defendant had no right, title or interest therein—Plaintiff had knowledge of all the proceedings—His suit was liable to be dismissed.
       Held : So far as the first matter is concerned, it is clear that the land was acquired as early as in 1966. The notification was issued on 3rd June, 1966 and an award was passed on 6th May, 1970. Mutation had been effected in February, 1972. A copy of the award is also part of the present proceedings and it refers to Khasra No. 173/2 min. The case of the appellant is that initially there was Khasra No. 173 which was later on divided in two Khasra Nos. being 173/1 and 173/2. Though the plaintiff claimed the disputed land on the basis of the sale deed contending that he had purchased a portion of land out of old Khasra No. 173 min, he was unable to specify as to whether he was having his plot in Khasra No. 173/1 or 173/2. The factual position, according to the appellant-Trust was that Khasra No. 173/1 was given new Khasra No.230 and Khasra No. 173/2 min was divided into various parts and given new Khasra Nos. 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 236/1, 237, 238 and 239. As per new numbers, the land of the plaintiff Khariati Lal was covered by new Khasra No. 235 which had been validly acquired and was covered by the award. The award specifically refers to Khasra No. 173/2 min new Survey No. 235. It also gives names of persons who had made un-authorised construction and the name of the plaintiff Khariati Lal is mentioned. It also mentions names of Mangat Ram brother of the plaintiff and Mulkh Raj from whom the plaintiff had purchased the land. (Para 20)
       From the aforesaid discussion, in our opinion, the courts below were not right in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff. The courts were also wrong in observing that it was not proved by the defendant that the land was acquired by the State Government. In our opinion, when the plaintiff had approached the court for permanent injunction claiming to be owner of the property, it was his duty to prove that he was the owner of the property, the said property remained in his possession and that the defendant had no right, title or interest therein. Since the plaintiff failed to prove his case the suit was liable to be dismissed. We are also satisfied that from the award, it is clear that the plaintiff had knowledge of all the proceedings. He was party to the award, was found to be in unauthorized possession and had agreed to remove the malba at his own costs. (Para 21)
       A copy of the award which is part of the present proceeding expressly refers to 173/2 min - new Survey No. 237/1 - is part of old Khasra No. 173/2 min. Thus the said land too vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances and plaintiff had no right, title or interest in it. All the courts below, therefore, were wrong in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff had no right in 1990 when according to him he purchased the property, his suit was liable to be dismissed. (Para 23)

Judgment

C.K. Thakker, J.—Leave granted.

2. These appeals are filed by Yamuna Nagar Improvement Trust challenging the legality of judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagadhri, dated January 28, 1999, confirmed by the Additional District Judge, Jagadhri on November 24, 2000 and also confirmed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on August 14, 2003.

3. To appreciate the controversy in the appeals, relevant facts of both the cases may be stated in brief.

In the first matter, a suit was filed by Kharaiti Lal, S/o Deewan Chand, for perma nent injunction restraining Yamuna Nagar Improvement Trust (“Trust” for short) from interfering with actual and physical possession over the residential house owned by the plaintiff by demolishing the construction made by him. The case of the plaintiff was that he along with his brother Mulakh Raj purchased the property bearing Khasra No. 173 min, mauza Gobindpuri now Sham Nagar, Near Bus Stand, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar, from one Mangal, S/o Nihala vide registered sale deed dated March 9, 1962 for valuable consideration. It was his case that in pursuance of the sale deed, physical and actual possession of the land was handed over to the plaintiff and his brother by Mulakh Raj. Thereafter the plaintiff constructed a residential house wherein he was residing alongwith his family members. According to the plaintiff, he was paying house tax to the Municipal Committee, Yamuna Nagar. Water and electric connection was also given to him in the residential house. It was alleged by the plaintiff that officials of the defendant-trust came to the house of the plaintiff and threatened to demolish the house though the trust had no right, title or interest in the property. The plaintiff made enquiries from the office of the defendant and came to know that the said property had never been acquired by the defendant-trust. Since there was threat to demolish the property which belonged to the plaintiff, he was constrained to approach the court for permanent injunction.

4. The trust filed a written statement inter alia contending that the disputed land was acquired by the State Government by issuing notifications under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. An award was declared for the said land on May 6, 1970. The mutation of transfer of land was also sanctioned on February 9, 1972. The plaintiff was a party to the award proceedings. He received the amount of compensation also. The defendant took over possession of the land. It was also stated in the award by the Land Acquisition Collector that the plaintiff had agreed to remove his malba from the site at his own cost. The plaintiff thus was not in possession of the land and was a trespasser. It was also asserted that some of the land owners filed a writ petition in the High Court being Civil Writ Petition No. 4279 of 1981 which was dismissed.

5. It was further stated by the defendant that the plaintiff never challenged the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector. On the contrary, he was a party to the award, he accepted the award, received the amount of compensation and agreed to remove malba at his own cost. Since the plaintiff had no right whatsoever, the suit filed by him was liable to be dismissed.

6. The trial court decreed the suit holding that the suit land which was a “part of Khasra No. 1733, mauza Gobindpuri” was not acquired by award dated May 6, 1970 under the notification dated June 3, 1966. It was observed that Mangal from whom the plaintiff purchased the land was not applicant before the High Court in the writ petition. On the basis of the sale deed dated March 9, 1962, the plaintiff became the owner of the property and was in possession thereof. These was no material to show that the said land was acquired by the State Government and hence the plaintiff was entitled to permanent injunction.

7. Being aggrieved by the decree of the trial court, the appellant preferred an appeal. It was contended by the appellant that land was acqui

Click Here to Read the rest of this document