Belu (dead) through LRs and Another vs Lal Chand and Another

Surjit Singh, J.—This Regular Second Appeal by the Defendants is directed against the judgment and decree dated 1st July, 1999 of learned District Judge (first Appellate Court), whereby, accepting the appeal of plaintiff-Respondent, judgment and decree dated 18th March, 1998 of the trial Court, dismissing plaintiff�s-Respondent�s suit, was set aside and the suit of the plaintiff-Respondent, for issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the Defendants-Appellants from interfering in land measuring 6 biswas, bearing Khasra No. 5834, situate in Phati Halan Kothi Naggar, was decreed.

Plaintiff-Respondent Lal Chand filed a suit for issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the Defendants-Appellants from interfering in his possession over suit land, which measures 6 biswas, alleging that he was owner in possession of the said land, on account of the same having been granted to him under Nautor Scheme, vide Patta dated 25th March, 1976, Ex. PW-3/A. It was alleged that Defendants-Appellants, in connivance with the revenue officials, got this very land allotted to them in the year 1979, but the Khasra number assigned to the land allotted to the Defendants-Appellants was shown different, i.e. 6051.

Suit was contested by the Defendants-Appellants. They denied the allegations of the plaintiff-Respondent and pleaded that they had been allotted Khasra No. 6051, vide Patta dated 25th March, 1976, Ex. PW-2/A and that ever since they had been in possession of said Khasra number 6051.

Learned trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove that land bearing Khasra No. 6051 allotted to the Defendants-Appellants included 6 biswas land bearing Khasra No. 5834. Appeal was carried by the plaintiff-Respondent to the Court of District Judge.

Learned District Judge set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit, with the finding that Defendants-Appellants had been granted a different piece of land, initially, vide Patta Ex. PW-2/A and that after some time they approached the revenue authorities that the land allotted to them had been washed away by a rivulet action and so they be allotted another piece of land, in lieu of that washed away land and then they were allotted a new piece of land, which was assigned Khasra No. 6051 and its area included 6 biswas area of the plaintiff, bearing Khasra No. 5834. Learned District Judge passed a decree restraining the Defendants-Appellants from interfering with 6 biswas area bearing Khasra No. 5834 allotted to the plaintiff, vide Patta Ex. PW-3/A.

Present appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

When the Nautors were granted by the authorities exercising power under Special Nautor Scheme, could the Civil Court question the legality and validity on such pleas by holding that the grant of Nautor was in connivance with the Revenue Staff when there was no proper pleadings and evidence in this regard?

Whether it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to go into the legality and validity of the orders of the competent revenue officers passed under Special Nautor Scheme, which order was only succeptible to the revisional jurisdiction of the higher authorities, was the jurisdiction of the Civil Court ousted to act as a court of Appeal and sit over the correctness and validity of the orders passed by the competent Revenue Authorities making the grant and issue the pattas?

Whether the learned District Judge has proceeded to dispose of the appeal by committing great procedural error in taking into consideration the findings on various issues arrived at by the learned trial Court by appreciating the material available on the record. Is not the District Judge exceeded its jurisdiction in disposing of the appeal without discarding with the findings arrived at by the learned Trial Court? Was it permissible for the learned District Court to have differed with the findings of the learned Trial Court without giving reasons in the Judgment for not accepting the findings arrived at by the learned Trial Court.

Whether the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned District Judge is illegal, perverse and erroneous by ignoring the material documentary and oral evidence from consideration and misreading the material documents available on the record?

Whether the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Appellate Court is vitiated on account of misreading of pleadings oral and documentary evidence and is illegal and perverse being against law and facts?

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

There cannot be any dispute with the legal proposition that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to look into the validity or the legality of a grant made by the authorities, under the Nautor Scheme, provided the grant is made strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme. In case the grant is made in violation of the Scheme, Civil Court may look into the validity or legality of the grant. Substantial questions of law No. 1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the Defendants-Appellants that there is no material on record, indicating that this is a case of overlapping of the sites allotted to the plaintiff and the Defendants, under Nautor Scheme, and that the site, which has been allotted to the Defendants-Appellants, is different from the site allotted to the plaintiff-Respondent. Evidence on record shows that initially Defendants-Appellants had been allotted a different site which was one kilometer away from the road-head, per Ex. PW-2/B map of the site of Nautor proposed to be allotted to them. This very site was allotted to them vide Patta No. 121-T dated 25th March, 1976 Ex. PW-2/A. Plaintiff was allotted the suit land vide Patta Ex. PW-3/A bearing the same date as Ex. PW-2/A and this land was 2 km away from the road-head.

Defendants-Appellants made an application Ex. PW-3/C on 4th January, 1979, i.e. about three years after the grant of Nautor, for allotment of alternate site, alleging that the site initially allotted to them had been washed away in river flood. It was on the basis of this application that order dated 15th September, 1979 was passed by the Tehsildar, for allotment of alternate site. The site that was allotted under this order is shown in map Ex. PW-2/D.

A comparison of Ex. PW-2/D with plan Ex. PW-3/B, pertaining to the sites allotted to the plaintiff-Respondent, shows that the alternate site allotted to the Defendants-Respondents included 6 biswas area, which was allotted to the plaintiff-Respondent, vide Patta Ex. PW-3/A, and the plan of which site is Ex. PW-3/B. Plaintiff-Respondent was allotted 6 biswas area of Khasra No. 3831, adjacent to the 5 karam -- 21 karam line. Alternate site allotted to the Defendants-Appellants, in 1979, is partly adjacent to the aforesaid line of Khasra No. 3831 and partly adjacent and below Khasra No. 3829. Plan Ex. PW-2/D clearly shows that the entire area measuring 6 biswas, indicated in plan Ex. PW-3/B, was included in it. That means the area measuring 6 biswas, which already stood allotted to the plaintiff-Respondent, vide Patta Ex. PW-3/A and shown in plan Ex. PW-3/B, was included in site measuring 14 biswas allotted to the Defendants-Appellants vide order dated 15th September, 1979, as shown in plan Ex. PW-2/D. To the extent of 6 biswas area, which had earlier been allotted to the plaintiff-Respondent, the order of re-allotment made in favour of Defendants-Appellants, passed on application Ex. PW-3/C is illegal and void, as the land already stood allotted to the plaintiff-Respondent and the State had no power to re-allot this land to the Defendants-Appellants, as it lost title qua this land, on account of it having already been allotted to plaintiff-Respondent in the year 1976, vide Patta Ex. PW-3/A. Consequently, substantial questions of law No. 3, 4 and 5 are answered against the Defendants-Appellants.

In view of the aforesaid answers to the substantial questions of law, appeal is dismissed.