Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 799 (HP)

Dinesh Gupta v. State of H. P.

2016-05-13

SANDEEP SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Present second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.7.2005, passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, HP, in Civil Appeal No. 83 of 2003, titled “Dinesh Gupta v. Secretary (Revenue) and Anr.,” affirming the judgment and decree dated 17.1.2003, passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. in case No. 128/1 of 2000, titled “Dinesh Gupta v. Secretary (Revenue) and Anr.,” whereby suit filed by the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the ‘appellant’) was dismissed with cost. The present appeal was admitted by this Court on following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the impugned judgment and decree is result of misread and misinterpretation of oral as well as documentary evidence on record? 2. Whether the finding of the learned Courts below that the appellant is not entitled for the plot are against the Rules known as Allotment of Plots in New Bilaspur Township, whereby it is specifically provided under Rule 16(iv)(1) that the plot can be transferred by way of gift or will? 3. Whether the impugned judgment and decree is result of misread and misinterpretation of Ex.PW-2/A and Ex.PA? 2. The briefly stated facts of the controversy involved in the present case are that plaintiff-appellant filed suit for declaration to the effect that he being oustee and legatee of Smt. Sarswati Devi, w/o late Sh. Ajudhya Ram is entitled to house plot in new Bilaspur township, with a mandatory injunction to the defendants-respondents herein, to allot the house plot or shop to the present appellant. 3. Perusal of the plaint suggests that appellant Dinesh Gupta, s/o Shri Om Parkash being grandson of late Smt. Sarswati Devi, who expired on 9th June, 1999, applied for allotment of house plot on the ground that Smt. Sarswati Devi had executed a will in favour of the appellant on 9.8.1999 making/holding him entitled to pursue the matter of allotment of house plot in his favour being a legatee of a Bhakra Dam oustee. Averments contained in the plaint suggest that late Smt. Sarswati Devi, had got 1/4th share out of the compensation award by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, HP, vide judgment dated 27.4.1959, as per her share in the property acquired for construction of Bhakra Dam. Averments contained in the plaint suggest that late Smt. Sarswati Devi, had got 1/4th share out of the compensation award by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, HP, vide judgment dated 27.4.1959, as per her share in the property acquired for construction of Bhakra Dam. Thereafter, late Smt. Sarswati Devi applied for allotment of house/plot in the office of learned Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, H.P. It has been specifically averred in the plaint that the application for allotment of house/plot was entered in the plot allotment register against the Sr. No. 427 dated 30.8.1989. Even prior to this application, another application was also moved for allotment of house plot on 9.6.1976, but despite aforesaid communications late Smt. Sarswati Devi grandmother of the appellant, was not allotted house/plot in lieu of the land which was acquired. It also thereafter emerged that appellant being the power of attorney of his grandmother pursued the matter for the allotment of house/plot to defendant No. 2 vide representations dated 02.6.1999 and 29.3.2000 for allotment of house plot but instead of making allotment in terms of applications preferred by late Smt. Sarswati Devi, defendant No. 2 vide letter No. BLS-RRB. Ka/24212 dated 3.6.2000, informed the appellant that he has been already allotted plot bearing No. 84-B, measuring 43.24 sq. meters and as such, there is no occasion to allot any further plot in his favour. Appellant specifically alleged that besides the above said plot, his grandmother was actually entitled to house plot measuring No. 1800 sq. ft. of area since all other share holders were allotted the plot of same dimensions in view of the property acquired for the construction of the Bhakra Dam. Appellant stated that first cause of action arose to him on 27.4.1959 when learned Additional District Judge, passed judgment in favour of his grandmother entitling her ¼ share along with shareholders and thereafter, on 09.3.1976 and 30.8.1989 when she applied for allotment of house plot before the learned Deputy Commissioner, being Bhakra Dam oustee. It also emerges from the plaint that notice under Section 80 CPC was also served upon the respondents-defendants but as per versions of the appellant, no action whatsoever was taken by the authorities to make allotment of house plot in favour of his grandmother being an oustee. It also emerges from the plaint that notice under Section 80 CPC was also served upon the respondents-defendants but as per versions of the appellant, no action whatsoever was taken by the authorities to make allotment of house plot in favour of his grandmother being an oustee. Respondents-defendants by way of written statement filed under the signatures of learned District Collector, Bilaspur, refuted all the allegations/averments made by the present appellant/plaintiff in the civil suit. Respondents-defendants specifically took the plea that since late Smt. Sarswati Devi has died, as such, appellant has no authority, whatsoever in the law to pursue the matter solely on the basis of the alleged will, which is purely the personal matter between the appellant and his grandmother. It was also specifically alleged in the written statement that Will, which is being relied upon by the appellant, has no concern with the matter with regard to allotment of the plots to the Bhakra Dam oustee and, as such, no reliance can be placed on that. Respondents in para-4 of the written statement specifically stated that late Smt. Sarswati Devi was allotted plot being Bhakra Dam oustee and she herself opted for plots No. 228/1, 229/2 and finally plot No. 84/B was allotted on 9.5.1973 and subsequent to the same, she also executed Perpetual Lease Deed on 1.6.1973, which was duly signed by the learned District Collector. Para-4 of the written statement is reproduced herein below for the better understanding of the defence put in by the respondents before the learned trial Court below:- “4. That in reply to para No. 4, it is submitted that Smt. Sarswati Devi previously on 2.8.62 has applied for shop/plot only against her award qua the acquisition of the house/shop for the Bhakra Dam and her application was under consideration, in the meantime on 5.12.1962 she moved another application for house-cum-shop plot and it was informed to her vide letter No. 6756/RB, dated 20.7.70 that she may intimate the number of plot desired to be allotted. Smt. Sarswati Devi herself opted for plots out of plot No. 228/1, 229/2 and 84 and plot No. 84-B was allotted to her on 9.5.1973 and she has also furnished lease deed on dated 1.6.1973. The said allotment was made as per her entitlement. Smt. Sarswati Devi herself opted for plots out of plot No. 228/1, 229/2 and 84 and plot No. 84-B was allotted to her on 9.5.1973 and she has also furnished lease deed on dated 1.6.1973. The said allotment was made as per her entitlement. The application moved in the year 1989 has been replied to Smt. Sarswati Devi and she was informed that she was allotted plot No. 84-B as Bhakra oustee.” 4. Respondents by way of written statement also stated that allotment was made as per rules in favour of late Smt. Sarswati Devi and, as such, appellant has no right whatsoever to claim any plot because neither he is an oustee nor he is entitled for any kind of allotment and he has no locus standi to file the present suit. Learned trial Court after appreciating the pleadings available on record framed following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is oustee as alleged? OPP. 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to a house plot in new Bilaspur town-ship as alleged? OPP. 3. If issues No.1 and 2 are proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as alleged? OPP. 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD. 7. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit as alleged? OPD. 8. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged? OPD. 9. Relief. 5. Subsequently, it emerges from the record that the learned trial Court after appreciating evidence on record decided issues No. 1, 2 and 3 against the appellant-plaintiff and issues No. 4 and 5 in favour the defendants, however, records suggest that issues No. 6 to 8 were not pressed, though, onus of the same to prove was on the respondents-defendants. Issue No. 5 relates to the locusstandi and cause of action, if any, with the appellant to file suit, whereas issue No. 6 pertains to limitation since these issues have not been pressed by the defendants before the learned trial Court. Issue No. 5 relates to the locusstandi and cause of action, if any, with the appellant to file suit, whereas issue No. 6 pertains to limitation since these issues have not been pressed by the defendants before the learned trial Court. Though, present appeal has been admitted on three substantial question of law, which have already been reproduced above but collective/combined reading of the same suggest that actual issue which this Court is required to determine is “whether appellant is entitled for the allotment of any plot in Bilaspur Township being Bhakra Dam oustee, on the basis of a ‘will’, which has been allegedly executed by the testator late Smt. Sarswati Devi, in favour of her grandson Dinesh Gupta, appellant, where there is specific recital that she is a Bhakra Dam oustee and in that regard, she is entitled to one plot and proposal qua the same is pending in the office of Deputy Commissioner Bilaspur. 6. Mr. T.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that impugned judgment and decree passed by both the courts below are not sustainable as the same are not based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record. Courts below have not read evidence available in its right perspective and judgments are based on conjectures and surmises. He also contended that appellant was entitled to the allotment of plot in Bilaspur Township being a Bhakra oustee. Mr. Chauhan, argued that admittedly, one plot measuring 43.24 Sq. meters was allotted to the grandmother of the appellant but as per award passed by the learned District Judge, she was entitled to plot measuring 1800 sq. feet i.e. 169 sq. meters as was allotted to other co-sharers. He highly disputed the finding returned by the courts below that “appellant could not be termed as Bhakra oustee and no allotment can be made to him.” Mr. Chauhan further contended that since her grandmother was a Bhakra Dam oustee and was entitled to the plot of bigger dimension, as has been stated above, appellant has rightly claimed the house-plot being an oustee. Chauhan further contended that since her grandmother was a Bhakra Dam oustee and was entitled to the plot of bigger dimension, as has been stated above, appellant has rightly claimed the house-plot being an oustee. He also invited attention of this Court towards the will Ext.PW2/A, which has been allegedly executed by late Smt. Sarswati Devi bequeathing her property in favour of appellant (grandson), where in the Ext.PW-2/A, there is a recital with regard to claim, which is allegedly pending with the office of District Collector, Bilaspur, with regard to the allotment of house being Bhakra Dam Oustee in favour of the grandmother of the appellant. He also made this court to peruse Rule 16(iv)(1) of the allotment of Plots in Bilaspur Township to suggest that late Smt. Sarswati Devi was competent to transfer right by way of will or gift in favour of appellant, as has been done in the present case. He submitted that plaintiff is admittedly grandson of late Smt. Sarswati Devi and is entitled to house plot in terms of the will Ext.PW2/A, which otherwise stands proved on record, hence, finding of the courts below that no house plot could be granted to the appellant being Bhakra oustee, is not sustainable in the eye of law and as such same deserves to be quashed and set aside and he prayed that the judgment passed by both the courts below, may be quashed and set-aside being contrary to the facts and law. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents, supported the judgment of courts below and argued that no interference of this Court is called for at this stage as both the courts below have returned concurrent findings, after appreciating the material evidence available on record. He forcefully argued that it stands proved on record that late Smt. Sarswati Devi has been already granted plot in lieu of the land, which was acquired for the purpose of construction of Bhakra Dam. He submitted that appellant has miserably failed to prove his locus and capacity in which he could file the present suit to claim house plot. He also raised the plea of the limitation and stated that admittedly, as per averments contained in the plaint itself, prayer for claim for allotment of the measurement of 1800 sq. He submitted that appellant has miserably failed to prove his locus and capacity in which he could file the present suit to claim house plot. He also raised the plea of the limitation and stated that admittedly, as per averments contained in the plaint itself, prayer for claim for allotment of the measurement of 1800 sq. feet as was claimed by late Smt. Sarswati Devi, was rejected by the authorities in 1979 and, as such, any suit at this belated stage i.e. after 30 years cannot be entertained. Moreover, appellant cannot be termed a Bhakra Dam oustee in any manner and has no right whatsoever to claim house plot in lieu of the land acquired for construction of Bhakra Dam. He reiterated that this court may not interfere in the present matter as courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence on record. The Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly stated that High Court should not interfere in those matters, where there is concurrent finding recorded by the courts below and he prayed for the dismissal of the suit. 8. Undisputedly, in the present case, joint land in which late Smt. Sarswati Devi was one of the co-sharers was acquired by the respondents for constructions of Bhakra Dam. It is also admitted that as per Rehabilitation Scheme, all the persons whose land was acquired by the respondents for construction of Dam, were given compensation by passing awards and they were also allotted houses in newly set-up Bilaspur Township. The learned Additional District judge while passing award dated 27.4.1959 had held late Smt. Sarswati Devi entitled to the 1/4th share out of the compensation award, whereby her share had come to Rs. 1386.12 NP and, whereas, other co-sharer namely Om Parkash was given Rs. 4758.38 NP. Perusal of this award, which has been heavily relied upon by the plaintiff during the trial as well as at the time of arguments having been made by Mr. Chuahan, during the hearing of this appeal, nowhere suggest that there is any mention with regard to plot, if any, which was to be allotted by the authorities under Rehabilitation Scheme. This award only contains detail with regard to the apportionment of compensation which the parties have received in lieu of the land/house acquired for the purposes of construction of Bhakra Dam. This award only contains detail with regard to the apportionment of compensation which the parties have received in lieu of the land/house acquired for the purposes of construction of Bhakra Dam. Another communication Mark–X available on record suggests that there was a communication sent by Rehabilitation and Settlement Officer Bilaspur to late Smt. Sarswati Devi wife of Ayodhya Ram i.e. grandmother of present appellant, wherein she was advised to apply on prescribed format for the allotment of plot for house/shop/house-cum-shop. This communication was admittedly sent with reference to her letter, which was allegedly sent on 9.3.1976. Aforesaid communication also reveals that late Smt. Sarswati Devi had to apply in terms of the aforesaid letter detailing therein the compensation received by her besides disclosing therein the details and dimensions of the house/shop actually acquired by the authorities at the time of construction of the Bhakra Dam. Rather Clause (iv) of this letter under reference suggests that late Smt. Sarswati Devi was called upon to place on record some documents to establish that how she is entitled for a plot. Ext.PW-A letter dated 30.5.1989 suggests that late Smt. Sarswati Devi sent one communication to Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur wherein she referred to her previous letter dated 29.5.1989 enclosing therein photostat copy of award (duly attested) along with affidavit and prayed that she may be allotted plot at the earliest. Very careful reading of this letter sent by her suggests that she had prayed that “plot may be allotted to her at the earliest”. 9. There is another document available on record Mark-Y allegedly produced by the appellant to prove her point that another co-sharer namely Om Parkash Gupta was allotted plot of higher dimension i.e. approximately area of 1800 sq.ft. and another plot No. 113/B measuring approximately 450’ area in sq.ft. The aforesaid documents were tendered in evidence by the appellant solely with a view to prove that she was also entitled to the plots of the same measurement as was granted in favour of Om Parkash because she was also co-sharer in the property qua which the aforesaid Om Parkash was granted plot in lieu of the land acquired by the authorities. It emerges from the record that Shri Om Parkash as was being referred by late Smt. Sarswati Devi in the aforesaid communication is the son of Sarswati Devi, who probably in terms of the award passed by the learned Additional District judge, Bilaspur, was held entitled to share, which was definitely more than share of Sarswati Devi as is evident from the award i.e. Ext.A2. Hence, claim of the appellant to get plot of equal dimension as was allotted to Om Parkash appears to be ill founded, especially, on the ground that though, there is no specific description of the share of Om Parkash in the award as has been referred above but definitely after seeing his share in the money awarded by the then learned Additional District Judge, it can be safely inferred that he had bigger share in the joint property and as such he was allotted plot of the bigger measurement as per his share in the acquired property. Perusal of the other documents relied upon by appellant i.e. Mark-Z1 suggests that she has not been granted/allotted house being a Bhakra Dam oustee as per judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, H.P. dated 27.4.1959 as is being claimed in the present suit. As has been observed by this Court above that there is no mention with regard to the apportionment of the property in the award, rather, this award taking into consideration some compromise entered into between the parties specifically ordered for the apportionment of the money actually received by them qua the property, which was joint in nature and even that award suggests that late Smt. Sarswati Devi had agreed to get 1/4th Share out of the compensation, meaning thereby, she was held entitled as per agreement/compromise to the lesser share than Om Parkash, who admittedly got Rs. 4758.38 NP as award money, whereas late Smt. Sarswati Devi got Rs. 1556.12 NP. Though, there is no specific order available on record to suggest that what was actual share of late Smt. Sarswati Devi in the joint property but in the absence of the same, award passed by the learned District Judge vide Ex.PA-2, wherefrom, it can be inferred that Shri Om Parkash, had a bigger share in the property and he was granted plot of bigger measurement than late Smt. Sarswati Devi. 10. 10. There is another document Ext.PW-4/D available on record which clearly suggests that late Smt. Sarswati Devi, grandmother of appellant, was allotted one plot No. 84-C in Sector 6 in New Bilaspur Township, measuring 450 sqft., meaning thereby, the claim of the appellant that he is entitled to house plot in lieu of the land acquired for construction of Bhakra Dam, is not correct because, admittedly, vide letter dated 9.5.1973 that too pursuant to the application dated 2.8.1962 filed by late Smt. Sarswati Devi, his grandmother, a plot measuring 450 sq.ft was granted to late Smt. Sarswati Devi in lieu of the land which was acquired for the construction. The very claim of the appellant for the allotment of house plot that too in lieu of the land acquired for the purpose of construction is ill founded and cannot be looked into. Ext.PW/B which is an application for allotment of plots submitted by late Smt. Sarswati Devi suggests that while giving the details of the property in terms of the communication i.e. Mark-X 29.3.1976, she specifically stated that property is joint, meaning thereby, she was entitled to plot, if any, as per her share in the joint property. Though, there is no specific record with regard to the apportionment of the property between the co-sharers of the property owned by Shri Ayodhia Ram Gupta, husband of late Smt. Sarswati Devi but it can be inferred from the award passed by the learned District Judge that late Smt. Sarswati Davi was entitled to 1/4th share of the award and as such, she was rightly allotted plot measuring 450 sq.ft. as per her share in the joint property. 11. Ext.PW/E suggests that late Smt. Sarswati Devi had further acted on the letter dated 9.5.1973 Ext.PW4/D whereby she was allotted plot No. 84-B in Sector 6 and she was advised to execute a deed of Conveyance. Ex.PW/C clearly suggests that late Smt. Sarswati Devi had executed perpetual lease, which was signed by late Smt. Sarswati Devi as well as Deputy Commissioner. Even the perusal of the perpetual lease suggests that in the year, 1973, one plot having plot No. 84-B in Sector 6 Bilaspur Township was allotted to late Smt. Sarswati Devi. Ex.PW/C clearly suggests that late Smt. Sarswati Devi had executed perpetual lease, which was signed by late Smt. Sarswati Devi as well as Deputy Commissioner. Even the perusal of the perpetual lease suggests that in the year, 1973, one plot having plot No. 84-B in Sector 6 Bilaspur Township was allotted to late Smt. Sarswati Devi. Hence the claim of the present appellant to have another plot, detail whereof has been given above, cannot be accepted in any eventuality when it stands proved on record that late Smt. Sarswati Devi, grandmother of the appellant, has been allotted plot in lieu of the land acquired for the construction of Bhakra Dam. Rather perusal of Ext.DA letter dated 28.5.1970 suggests that she had applied for the allotment of the plot in new Bilaspur Township but authorities had replied that plot mentioned in the application is not available for the allotment and, as such, she was advised to give another number of the plot, which could be allotted to her. Subsequently, vide Ext.DB, letter written to Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, late Smt. Sarswati Devi herself supplied the details of the plots, which were lying vacant. As per detail given in the aforesaid communication sent by late Smt. Sarswati Devi plot Nos. 228 of 1, 228 of 2 or 84 Sector-6 were lying vacant and she had requested that plot may be allotted in her name. Perusal of Ext.DC, letter dated 26.11.1990 written by office of learned Commissioner Bilaspur to the late Smt. Sarswati Devi, wherein referring to the aforesaid communication, it was informed that she has been already allotted plot No. 84-B Sector 6 in main market as per rules of Bhakra Dam oustee in lieu of the land acquired for construction. 12. Perusal of the documents which duly stands proved on record, leaves no doubt in the mind of this Court that late Smt. Sarswati Devi had actually got plot in terms of rehabilitation policy or rules, if any, framed for the purpose aforesaid. Hence, the claim of the appellant (grandson of the late Smt. Sarswati Devi) to have house-plot being Bhakra Dam oustee is ill-founded and cannot be looked into solely for the reason that appellant had no locus whatsoever to move an application that too at this belated stage. 13. Hence, the claim of the appellant (grandson of the late Smt. Sarswati Devi) to have house-plot being Bhakra Dam oustee is ill-founded and cannot be looked into solely for the reason that appellant had no locus whatsoever to move an application that too at this belated stage. 13. The appellant with a view to prove its case examined PW-3 Mehar Singh and PW-4 Parkash Chand and besides this, he also placed on record oral evidence Ext.PA-1 i.e. statement of award, Ext.PA-2, copy of award/judgment dated 17.4.1959 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bilaspur, HP, Mark-X dated 29.5.1989 for the allotment of plot for house/shop/house-cum-shop, Ext.PW-2/A will dated 9.8.1999 executed by late Smt. Sarswati Devi, application form Ex.PW/3 for allotment of the house/plot dated 2.8.1962, Ext.PW/E copy of the perpetual lease. Besides this, appellant has also placed on record documents marked as Mark-X, Mark-Y and Mark-Z. The appellant in his statement stated that his grandmother was a Dam oustee and she was to be allotted house and shop, which was not allotted to her and in this regard, she moved an application to learned Deputy Commissioner a number of times. It also emerges from his statement that other co-sharer namely Shri Om Parkash, were allotted two plots but late Smt. Sarswati Devi was never allotted second plot. He being her special power of attorney visited the office of Deputy Commissioner number of times and despite moving applications for allotment of second plot, no consideration was made by the authorities. It has also come in her statement that late Smt. Sarswati Devi (grandmother of the appellant) had actually expired in October, 1999 and before her death, she had executed a will whereby she bequeathed her property in favour of her grandson-appellant. He also stated that Om Parkash was also a Dam oustee, who was his father and was allotted two plots. In his cross-examination, he admitted that during the life time of his grandmother, no suit was filed seeking house plot, as has been claimed by way of present appeal. He also admitted that his grandmother late Smt. Sarswati Devi was allotted plot No. 84-B as per her share vide communication dated 2.8.1997. 14. In his cross-examination, he admitted that during the life time of his grandmother, no suit was filed seeking house plot, as has been claimed by way of present appeal. He also admitted that his grandmother late Smt. Sarswati Devi was allotted plot No. 84-B as per her share vide communication dated 2.8.1997. 14. If the aforesaid statement of appellant is read in its entirety with documentary evidence available on record, it leaves no doubt in my mind that appellant is not entitled to have house plot being a grandson of late Smt. Sarswati Devi on the strength of will because late Smt. Sarswati Devi had been already granted plot in lieu of the land acquired by the authorities for construction of Bhakra Dam. It stands proved beyond reasonable doubt that late Smt. Sarswati Devi was allotted plot No. 84-B in new Bilaspur Township on 2.8.1962. Now at this Stage, it is very interesting to know that by way of present suit , plaintiff while claiming second plot has cited the example of Om Prakash, as per his own statement and as per record also, Om Parkash is his father, meaning thereby, joint property of the family was acquired and after passing of the award under Land Acquisition Act, money was apportioned among the cosharers, wherein Sh. Om Parkash being the son of Shri Ayodhya Ram got bigger share than late Smt. Sarswati Devi who had got 1/4th share. In can be safely inferred and concluded from the aforesaid fact that authorities had allotted two plots, if any, to the Om Parkash, who was also son of late Smt. Sarswati Devi and father of appellant as per his share in the joint property. On the other hand late Smt. Sarswati Devi, who was held entitled to 1/4th share, as per compromise, factum of which can be gathered from the award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, was rightly allotted one plot having No. 84-B as per her share in the joint property. On the other hand late Smt. Sarswati Devi, who was held entitled to 1/4th share, as per compromise, factum of which can be gathered from the award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, was rightly allotted one plot having No. 84-B as per her share in the joint property. Hence, the claim of present appellant, who claims himself to be an oustee and he is entitled to another plot as has been given to Om Parkash being Bhakra Dam oustee, cannot be termed as justified, rather, it appears to be an attempt on the part of the joint family, who has admittedly got the monetary compensation as well as land/plots in lieu of land acquired for the purpose of construction of Bhakra Dam, to grab more property in the name of Bhakra Dam. As has been observed above, late Smt. Sarswati Devi, Om Parkash and the present appellant are closely related being grandmother, father and son and they have already received appropriate compensation as well as plots in lieu of the land acquired. 15. This Court is constrained to observe that this is a sheer abuse of process of law, where the appellant merely by twisting the facts and documents on record has attempted to seek relief from this Court to the effect that he may be held entitled for second plot, as has been given to his father Om Parkash/son of late Smt. Sarswati Devi. But the recitals made in the alleged will are not relevant for reaching just and fair decision in the present case, as Will which is being relied upon by the appellant, is of no consequence as far as this case is concerned. On the other hand, documents made available on record by the respondents have left no scope for this court to disagree with the contentions raised by Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General that late Smt. Sarswati Devi has already received one plot bearing No. 84-B in lieu of the land acquired for the purpose of construction. On the other hand, documents made available on record by the respondents have left no scope for this court to disagree with the contentions raised by Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General that late Smt. Sarswati Devi has already received one plot bearing No. 84-B in lieu of the land acquired for the purpose of construction. Now as far as the entitlement of present appellant is concerned, it may be pointed out that conduct of appellant in claiming the second plot by way of present second appeal, has been not found up to the mark, rather, facts and the circumstances and documents on record, compel this court to form an opinion that appellant has not approached this Court with clean hands but an attempt has been made to grab another plot on the basis of will, which was allegedly executed by late Smt. Sarswati Devi. 16. As has been observed above, family comprising of late Smt. Sarswati Devi, Om Parkash and the present appellant had actually got compensation in lieu of land acquired for construction but now with a view to take another plot, appellant presented himself to be a Bhakra Dam oustee. Moreover, there is no explanation as to why suit, if any, for the allotment of second plot was not filed during the life time of late Smt. Sarswati Devi, who expired in October, 1999. Even the perusal of will Ext.PW2/A, suggests that this will, which was executed by late Smt. Sarswati Devi is not definitely a subject matter of the present controversy which appears to have been prepared/executed with a specific purpose to have another plot that too in the name of present appellant because bare perusal of the will suggests that by way of this will late Smt. Sarswati Devi had bequeathed the plot, which she was expecting to get on the basis of her claim which was lying pending before the District Collector for allotment of second plot as was given to Om Parkash. This will nowhere suggests that by way of this appeal, late Smt. Sarswati Devi had actually bequeathed any part of her property to the present appellant. This will nowhere suggests that by way of this appeal, late Smt. Sarswati Devi had actually bequeathed any part of her property to the present appellant. Rather, by way of will, appellant has been held entitled to pursue the matter for allotment of house plot in his favour being legatee of a Bhakra Dam oustee, which as per recitals made in the will, was pending in the office of leaned Collector. 17. In view of the recitals made in the will, as has been mentioned above, this court is constrained to observe that even this will was got executed with ulterior motive to procure another plot apart from plot which late Smt. Sarswati Devi had actually got from the authorities in lieu of the land acquired for the purpose of construction of Bhakra Dam. Admittedly, present suit has been filed in year, 2003 i.e. after 14 years of the death of late Smt. Sarswati Devi which itself indicates towards the conduct of the appellant who has certainly not approached this Court with clean hands rather he has attempted to get something which he could not otherwise legally get from the authorities. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as on the basis of material available on record, this court sees no reason to interfere with the judgments passed by the courts below which are definitely based upon the correct appreciation of material available on record. Hence, this appeal fails and dismissed accordingly.