RSA No.3628 of 2010

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

RSA No.3628 of 2010

Date of Decision : 2.4.2014

Faqir Mohd.

.....Appellant

Vs.

Municipal Committee Nabha

......Respondent

...

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

...

Present :

Mr. M.L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate

for the appellant.

Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.

...

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J

This is yet another glaring example, where an unscrupulous and

dishonest litigant has been trying to grab the public property, by adopting

every possible illegal method.

Present appeal, at the instance of defendant, is directed against

concurrent findings recorded by both the learned courts below, whereby suit

for declaration, possession, permanent injunction and mesne profits filed by the

plaintiff-Municipal Committee was partly decreed.

The brief resume of the case of plaintiff, as pleaded in the plaint is

that the suit land is part of Nabha Fort and falls within the municipal limits of

the committee. It is alleged that earlier the ownership of the suit land vested in

Nabha State and in terms of the notification dated 17.5.1950 issued by the

Secretary, Government of Erstwhile Pepsu State, the ownership of the suit land

vests in the plaintiff/municipal Committee. It is alleged that the defendant was

Sahni Greesh

2014.05.01 15:03

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

High Court, Chandigarh

RSA No.3628 of 2010

2

introduced as a tenant by the Horticulture Department of State of Punjab and

subsequently the defendant started claiming himself to be the owner of the suit

land. It is alleged that the defendant remained in possession of the suit land for

the period 1969-70 to 1974-75 as lessee under the Horticulture Department as

he was inducted as lessee in the public auction of the suit land. It is alleged

that the defendant is claiming ownership of the suit land in terms of decree

dated 2.12.1998 passed in Civil Suit no.362/9.10.1987 by the court of Sub

Judge, Ist Class, Nabha, but the plaintiff/committee has not been impleaded as

party in the said suit and said decree has been obtained by the defendant by

committing fraud claiming adverse possession. It is alleged that the plaintiff

requested the defendant several times to hand over the possession and to pay

mesne profits for enjoyment of the suit land being illegal occupation of the suit

land but he has refused to do so. On the aforesaid facts, the plaintiff has filed

the present suit.

Upon notice, defendant appeared and filed written statement by

alleging that the plaintiff/municipal committee is not owner of the suit land. It

is alleged that the defendant is in possession of the suit land for the last more

than 40 years and has become the owner by way of adverse possession and the

notification dated 17.5.1950 is a paper transaction and is not valid. It is alleged

that the State of Punjab filed ejectment application against the defendant under

the provisions of Punjab Public Premises (Eviction and Recovery) Act, 1973

which was dismissed in appeal by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala,

vide order dated 2.3.1979 holding that the defendant is not unauthorised

occupant of the suit land and can not be evicted there from and said order was

confirmed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh. It is also

alleged that the decree dated 2.12.1987 is legal and valid and can not be

Sahni Greesh

2014.05.01 15:03

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

High Court, Chandigarh

RSA No.3628 of 2010

3

challenged in the present suit. Denying all other averments, the defendant has

prayed for dismissal of the suit.

On completion of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court

framed the following issues :

“1.

Whether the plaintiff is owner of the land in suit and

is entitled to the possession of the same ? OPP.

2.

Whether the decree dated 2.12.1998 in suit no.362 of

9.10.87 is illegal, null and v