Suhagwanti vs Municipal Council and Another

Sabina, J.—The Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that she had become owner in possession of the property in dispute.

The case of the Plaintiff, in brief, was that she had become the owner of the suit property. As per the revenue record i.e. jamabandi for the year 1939-40, the land measuring 2 kanals 12 marlas was shown to be owned by shamlat deh. However, the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur vide order dated 4.1.1976 sanctioned the mutation No. 20118 in favour of the Defendant regarding ownership of the suit property. The said order was illegal, null and void. Bijli Mal had sold the suit property to Rattan Chand, husband of the Plaintiff, who had died on 2.4.1996. The possession of the suit property was handed over by the vendor to the vendee about 20 years ago. Prior to the purchase of the suit land by the husband of the Plaintiff, Bijlimal was in possession of the suit property for the last 30 years. An electric connection had been installed in the name of Rattan Chand for domestic purposes. Municipal Committee had filed an selectment application u/s 4 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery), Act, 1973 and the same was allowed by the Collector, Ferozepur. An appeal filed by the Plaintiff was dismissed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur vide order dated 13.5.1999. The Defendants, in their written statement, averred that the Municipal Committee had become owner of the suit property and mutation had been sanctioned in favour of Defendant No. 1 on 2.7.1981. As per notification dated 4.1.1976 entire shamlat deh land, Nazool land and rehabilitation land stood transferred in the name of Municipal Committees/Notified Area Committees.

On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:

Whether the Plaintiff becomes owner by way of adverse, open, notorious and lapse of time, if so its effect? OPP.

Whether the order of Deputy Director, Local Government, Ferozepur and Commissioner, Ferozepur is being illegal, null and void without jurisdiction, if so its effect? OPP

Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP

Whether this Court has got no jurisdiction under the provisions of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act? OPD

Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

Whether the Plaintiff has suppressed the material facts, if so its effect? OPD

Relief.

The Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) vide judgment and decree dated 19.12.2008 partly decreed the suit of the Plaintiff and declared the Plaintiff to be owner in possession of the house measuring 3 1/2 marlas bearing khasra No. 620 min. The order passed by the Deputy Director, Local Government, Ferozepur dated 23.9.1998 and order dated 13.5.1999 passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur were declared null and void. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the Defendants preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by the Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 20.10.2009 and consequently, the suit of the Plaintiff was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal by the Plaintiff.

After hearing learned senior Counsel for the Appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal.

Admittedly, as per the jamabandi for the year 1939-40, old khasra No. 1629 was recorded as shamlat deh. Since the land was recorded as shamlat deh, it vested in the gram panchayat. Thereafter, the suit land was transferred in favour of the Municipal Council. The Municipal Council had adopted the procedure as per law and had moved an application for selectment of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff had also earlier approached this Court alleging that he was ready to purchase the suit land and this Court had granted permission to the Plaintiff to apply to the appropriate authority for purchase of the land. Thus, in these circumstances, the learned Additional District Judge rightly held that the Plaintiff had herself admitted the ownership of the Defendants qua the suit property. Since the Defendants were taking recourse to law, the suit filed by the Plaintiff was not maintainable.

No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.