Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1382 (PNJ)

Karam Singh Etc. v. State Of Punjab

2007-07-25

HEMANT GUPTA

body2007
Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit for permanent injunction in respect of agricultural land comprised in Khewat/Khatoni No. 359/521 Khasra Nos. 286, 287, 290 and 291 on the basis of possession alone, was dismissed. 2. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is in possession of the suit land and has built a house thereon. The defendants have instituted a false case based on fictitious revenue record and started eviction proceedings under the Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act). The Collector passed the order of eviction against the plaintiff on 22.6.1971. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. Even the writ petition filed by the petitioner, was also dismissed. The plaintiff claimed that such decisions were based on wrong and baseless assumption of title and fraudulent and fictitious entries in the revenue record. As such the same are illegal and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent injunction to protect his possession over the suit land on the basis of possession alone. 3. In reply, it was pointed out that the suit property is an evacuee property and that the plaintiff is in unauthorised occupation of the same. The total land measuring 31 bighas 10 biswas was being used by the erstwhile State of Pepsu for holding a cattle fair. The suit land was placed at the disposal of the Rehabilitation Department. It is also pointed out that according to notification dated 1.1.1970, all unauthorised occupants of the evacuee property were required to apply to the Assistant Settlement Officer (Sales) within three months. The application of the plaintiff for allotment, was rejected by the Rehabilitation Department. The petitioner is a trespasser and has exhausted all remedies and, therefore, not entitled to injunction. The learned trial Court, found that the plaintiff was ousted from the possession in pursuance of the eviction order, but thereafter the plaintiff re-entered the suit land. In view of the said fact, it was found that the grant of injunction would be misuse of the process of law and thus, the plaintiff is not entitled to the injunction sought for. 4. In view of the said fact, it was found that the grant of injunction would be misuse of the process of law and thus, the plaintiff is not entitled to the injunction sought for. 4. The appeal against the said judgment and decree was dismissed holding that the plaintiff was lawfully ejected in the year 1971 by initiating proceedings under the Act. Since the plaintiff has occupied the suit property after eviction, he is not entitled to injunction as the land is lying vacant because it is used only at the time of cattle fair. If the protection sought for is granted to the plaintiff, there will be no end to it and the eviction order already passed against him, would carry no value in the eyes of law. However, the learned first Appellate Court found that the defendants have not proved the fact that the property was once owned by a Mohammedan and, therefore, it cannot be said to be evacuee property. 5. The sole argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in the present appeal is that the possession of the plaintiff-appellant is admitted and, therefore, the appellant-plaintiff is entitled to the decree of permanent injunction and that the defendants have not set up the title in their favour in the suit. 6. Firstly, the argument regarding question of setting up of the title by the defendants. It is the case of the plaintiff himself that the eviction order has been passed against the petitioner under the Act. The plaintiff has remained unsuccessful in appeal as well as in the writ petition. The only relevant issue framed is whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land and whether he is entitled to the relief of injunction. The question of ownership was not made an issue. Since an order of ejectment has attained finality, it is not open to the plaintiff to challenge the said order of eviction before the Civil Court. The possession was taken by State on 13.12.1971 as per the daily diary report for the year 1971-72 produced on record. Subsequently, the plaintiff has re-entered the land on 27.12.1971. The question which arises is whether after re-entry, the defendants are required to seek fresh eviction proceedings or the plaintiff can be evicted in pursuance of the eviction order already passed against the plaintiff. 7. Subsequently, the plaintiff has re-entered the land on 27.12.1971. The question which arises is whether after re-entry, the defendants are required to seek fresh eviction proceedings or the plaintiff can be evicted in pursuance of the eviction order already passed against the plaintiff. 7. The findings recorded by the Courts below are perfectly justified when it is held that if fresh proceedings are sought to be initiated against the plaintiff on account of his re-entry in the suit land, it would be endless. Since the eviction order has attained finality, mere fact that the plaintiff has re-entered premises, could not nullify the effect of the eviction order. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to protect his possession, which may be taken by the respondents in execution of the eviction order already passed against the plaintiff. 8. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. 9. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.