Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2157 (HP)

Union of India v. Bhagat Ram Chauhan

2016-10-04

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2016
JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. Plaintiff's suit for possession qua the suit land comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No.80/86, Khasra No.419/266/1, measuring 10 biswas, located at Village Mashobra, Pargana Shohawali, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P. stood decreed by the learned trial Court. The defendants standing aggrieved by the apposite rendition of a decree of possession qua the suit land vis-a-vis the plaintiff preferred an appeal therefrom before the learned District Judge, Shimla, who in his rendition rendered a verdict in affirmation to the verdict recorded by the learned trial Court. The defendants/appellants herein are aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Shimla, wherefrom they hence for assailing it prefer an appeal here before. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff has filed suit for possession regarding the land bearing khewat khatauni No. 80/86, khasra No.419/266/1, measuring 10 biswas, situated at village Mashobra, Pargana Shohawali, Tehsil and District Shimla, H.P. The plaintiff has also sought the decree of possession on the ground that the defendants may kindly be directed to remove the construction/structure and handover the vacant possession of the suit land to the plaintiff. The suit has been filed on the ground that he is in exclusive owner in possession of the suit land. According to him, the defendants had raised the construction of three storeyed building for running post office and staff quarter about 5-6 years ago and taking the undue advantage of the absence of the plaintiff from the spot, the defendants have encroached upon the suit land. The factum of above encroachment came to the notice of the plaintiff during the settlement proceedings. When the plaintiff came to know about the illegal possession of the defendants over the suit land, then he lodged his protest to the concerned authorities who assured the plaintiff that the construction would be removed or the suit land would be acquired, but when they failed to keep their words then plaintiff served a legal notice upon them on 26.7.2003. Despite service of the notice, neither the construction was removed nor the possession was handed over to the plaintiff. Hence the suit. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement. The defendants in their written statement have taken the preliminary objections inter alia cause of action, locus standi, estoppel, limitation, maintainability and mis joinder and non joinder of necessary parties. Hence the suit. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement. The defendants in their written statement have taken the preliminary objections inter alia cause of action, locus standi, estoppel, limitation, maintainability and mis joinder and non joinder of necessary parties. On merits, It has been pleaded that the defendants had opened a post office at Mashobra to provide the postal facilities to the general public. Earlier, the post office was functioning in rented building and lateron a case for acquisition of plot measuring 11 biswas from khewat No.5, Khatauni No.5, khasra No.266 was taken up with the H.P. State Government. The acquisition proceedings were finalized in the year 1956 and the land, upon which building of the post office is situated was acquired. It has been also pleaded that the value of the land was assessed as Rs.2,645/- which was paid to the H.P. State government vide cheque No.005892/509153 dated 23.12.1957. Thereafter, the possession of the land was taken by the department on 17.03.1959. Thereafter the construction work of the building of the post office was started. During the period when the construction work was going on, no objection has been raised. They have also pleaded that the suit land has not been encroached upon by the defendants, as such, the question of giving any assurance to the plaintiff regarding payment of market value of the land or removal of the structural does not arise. Other contents of the plaint have also been denied and the defendants have prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. The plaintiff/respondent herein filed replication to the written statement of the defendants/appellants, wherein, he denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the plaint. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck following issues inter-se the parties in contest:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of possession, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit, as alleged? OPD 3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is guilty of suppressing material facts, if so, its effect? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD. 6. Whether the present suit is not maintainable, as alleged? OPD 7. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 CPC? OPD 8. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is guilty of suppressing material facts, if so, its effect? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD. 6. Whether the present suit is not maintainable, as alleged? OPD 7. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 CPC? OPD 8. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by his own act, omission and commissions? OPD 9. Whether the suit is not valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD. 10. Whether the suit is not properly and legally verified as per rules? OPD 11. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the appellants/defendants before the learned first Appellate Court, the learned first Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. 7. Now the defendants/appellants have instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court assailing the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court in its impugned judgement and decree. 8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and have also carefully perused the entire record. 9. The plaintiff had acquired title as owner to the suit land from one Chidu its hitherto owner. The plaintiff averred qua the defendants subjecting the suit land to construction whereupon he stood constrained to institute the instant suit qua restoration of its possession. Revenue records qua the suit land comprised in Exts.PW1/D to Ex.PW1/M make visible disclosures therein qua the plaintiff holding title as owner to the suit land. However, though the apposite portrayals held in Ex.PW1/D to Ex.PW1/M do hold a presumption of truth yet the presumption of truth garnered by the revenue entries held in Ex.PW1/D to Ex.PW1/M is rebuttable besides is displaceable by cogent evidence standing adduced by the defendants wherein bespeakings occur of the suit land during the life time of its hitherto owner one Chidu standing subjected to acquisition by the relevant competent authority also his receiving compensation in sequel to an award qua the suit land standing pronounced by the relevant competent authority. In the event of the rebuttable presumption of truth garnered by the apposite reflections occurring in Exts. In the event of the rebuttable presumption of truth garnered by the apposite reflections occurring in Exts. PW1/D to Ex.PW1/M qua the plaintiff holding title to the suit land standing hence displaced, the decrees of possession qua the suit land concurrently rendered by both the learned Courts below would suffer the fate of theirs being amenable for reversal by this Court. 10. The defendants to substantiate the factum of the suit land during the life time of Chindu wherefrom the plaintiff acquired title thereto, standing subjected to acquisition, placed reliance upon notifications issued for acquisition of the suit land, notifications whereof stand comprised in Ext. DW-Z-1 and Ext. DW-Z-2. However, the concert of the defendants to thereupon strip the vigour of the plaintiff's assertion qua a decree for possession of the suit land being renderable qua him, is rendered infirm in the evident trite factum of the defendants not placing on record the best evidence comprised in the competent authority in pursuance thereto pronouncing an award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act whereupon the suit land stood brought to acquisition wherefrom the apposite aspiration of the defendants would formidably spur. Since the pronouncement of an award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act by the relevant competent authority was imperative for holding a firm conclusion qua during the life time of Chidu, the suit land standing acquired whereupon hence Chidu stood divested of title qua the suit land also concomitantly hence the defendants stood vested with title thereto. In sequel, its non adduction into evidence by the defendants whereupon thereupon they stood empowered to proclaim with vigour the factum of presumption of truth foisted to the relevant revenue entries comprised in Ex.PW1/D to Ex.PW1/M suffering rebuttal, coaxes an Invincible inference of the relevant authority concerned not under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act pronouncing an award qua the suit land nor also hence any divestment of title of Chidu vis-à-vis the suit land occurring nor also any vestment of title thereon standing bestowed upon the defendants. Consequently, the ensuing inference is of Chidu holding valid title vis-a-vis the suit land also his hence holding empowerment to make its valid alienation vis-a-vis the plaintiff, as a corollary, also the plaintiff holds title to the suit land as its owner besides holds empowerment to institute a suit for recovery of its possession. Consequently, the ensuing inference is of Chidu holding valid title vis-a-vis the suit land also his hence holding empowerment to make its valid alienation vis-a-vis the plaintiff, as a corollary, also the plaintiff holds title to the suit land as its owner besides holds empowerment to institute a suit for recovery of its possession. Significantly also the concert of the defendants to on the anvil of the apposite notifications issued under the relevant sections of the Land Acquisition Act comprised in Ex.DW-Z-1 and Ex.DW-Z-2 to hence bely the presumption of truth qua the relevant revenue entries held in the apposite jamabandis qua the suit land, jamabandis whereof stand comprised in Exts. PW1/D to PW1/M holds no vigour besides no probative sinew. Consequently, the presumption of truth qua the apposite manifestations held in Ext. PW1 /D to Ex.PW1/M personificatory of the plaintiff holding title qua the suit land, remain, for want of cogent evidence for belying them, both undisplaced besides undislodged, wherefrom the inevitable sequel is of the relevant reflections occurring therein holding conclusivity. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants/appellants herebefore strives to canvass of the presumption of truth garnered by the apposite reflections occurring in the aforesaid jamabndis comprised in Ex.PW1/D to Ex.PW1/M stands belied by Ex.DW1/A and Ex.DW1A2. Ex.DW1/A wherewithin recitals occur qua the suit land standing purchased for a sum of Rs.3068/-. However, the reference therein qua the suit land standing acquired for construction of Telephone Exchange at Mashobra cannot hold any co-relation vis-a-vis the suit land. Conspicuously, when there occurs no recital therein qua the khasra number of the suit land, obviously, for want of any allusion occurring therein qua the khasra number as stands borne by the suit land, any reliance by the defendants upon Ex.DW1/A to displace the presumption of truth acquired by the apposite reflections existing in the apposite jamabandis qua the suit land wherein the plaintiff is depicted to be its owner, is wholly misplaced. Also, in the absence of adduction into evidence by the defendants, the relevant pronouncement under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act by the Land Acquisition Collector concerned, whereas it constituted the best evidence to succor its claim qua the suit land standing subjected to acquisition also for clinching its espousal qua its hitherto owner Chidu standing divested of title thereto besides hence stood rendered disempowered to transfer it to the plaintiff whereupon the latter would obviously hold no clout to canvass the relief as asserted in the plaint, does with renewed vigour constrain a firm conclusion from this Court qua apart from the aforesaid infirmity griping it whereupon it holds no tenacity to strip the vigour of the apposite reflections held in the apposite jamabandis qua the suit land, its probative tenacity, if any, held therewithin standing emasculated in its entirety. Consequently, reliance placed thereupon by the defendants to displace the presumption of truth acquired by the apposite reflections held in the apposite jamabandis is unworthwhile. Ex.DW1A2 wherewithin recitals occur qua land measuring 11 biswas, situated in Village Mashobra, District Mahasu standing acquired by the State of Himachal Pradesh for a sum of Rs.2,645/- also occurrence of recitals therein of the aforesaid amount standing disbursed by cheques bearing the numbers reflected therein also lose their sway for want of (a) any firm recital standing held therewithin qua the aforesaid amount standing disbursed vis-a-vis Chidu; (b) absence of enunciation therein qua the khasra number of the suit land. Consequently any reflections held therewithin qua disbursement of an amount of Rs.2645 as compensation through cheques bearing numbers reflected therein cannot be construable to be a disbursement thereto vis-a-vis the suit land to Chidu. Absence of the aforesaid portrayals, for reasons aforestated, in Ex.PW1A2 concomitantly do not foist any right in the defendant to thereupon stake qua theirs ousting the presumption of truth held by the apposite reflections existing in the apposite jamabandis qua the suit land, reflections whereof vividly display of the plaintiff holding title thereto. In sequel, the apposite reflections in the jamabandis aforesaid acquire conclusivity. 12. In sequel, the apposite reflections in the jamabandis aforesaid acquire conclusivity. 12. The determination aforesaid by this Court qua the defendants not adducing any cogent evidence for belying the presumption of truth held by the revenue entries existing in the apposite jamabandis qua the suit land whereupon conclusivity is to be hence imputed to them, whereupon the plaintiff holds a right to stake a tenable claim for rendition of a decree for possession qua the suit land yet the plaintiff was also enjoined to adduce the apposite best evident connotative of the defendant utilizing the suit land for raising construction thereon. The apposite best evidence stood embedded in a valid demarcation conducted qua the suit land by the competent revenue agency. The aforesaid apposite best evidence stands unfolded in the report of the local commissioner tendered before the Appellate Court on 22.08.2014. The report of the local commissioner, who stood appointed by the Appellate Court on 22.07.2014 for holding demarcation of the suit land unfolds of his relevant demarcation standing conducted in consonance with the relevant canons prescribed in the apposite rules. Moreover, the report of the Local Commissioner stood not objected to by any of the contesting parties. Consequently, all the disclosures which occur therein in display of the defendants/appellants holding possession of the suit land by raising construction thereon holds immense vigour. As a sequitur, the decree for possession of the suit land concurrently pronounced by both the learned Courts below warrants vindication. 13. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court as also by the learned trial Court are based upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court as well as the learned trial Court have not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Consequently, no substantial question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant appeal. 14. In view of above discussion, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. In sequel, the judgments and decrees rendered by both the learned Courts below are maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.