Beena Kumari v. Satnam Singh & ANR

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ......

.....

Date of decision:22.5.2018 Beena Kumari .....Petitioner v.

Satnam Singh and another .....Respondents ....

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh .....

Present:

Mr. S.K. Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. H.S. Grewal, Advocate for the respondents. .....

Inderjit Singh, J.

This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 20.1.2016 (Annexure-P.1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dera Bassi, vide which the application dated 4.12.2015 (Annexure-P.4) filed by the petitioner for appointment of Revenue Officer as Local Commissioner was dismissed and further prayer for acceptance of the application.

Notice of motion was issued in this case.

Mr. H.S. Grewal, learned Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondents and contested this civil revision petition.

[2] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

From the record, I find that Beena Kumari-plaintiff filed suit for declaration against Satnam Singh and Rajjan Shardha to the effect that plaintiff is owner in possession of House Plot No.412-A situated in Shivalik Vihar, Village Bhabat, Nagar Panchayat Zirakpur, Tehsil Dera Bassi (earlier in District Patiala) now in District S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) measuring 125 Sq. yards being 38/1521 share in Rakba of 8 Kanals 9 Marlas comprising in Khasra No.54//20/1 (4-19), 25/2 (3-10) being purchased from the original owner Shivalik Vihar.

During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC read with Section 151 CPC was filed for appointment of Revenue Officer as Local Commissioner for demarcation of the disputed property and to report in which Khasra number the same falls i.e. in Khasra No.54//2/1 (4-19), 25/2 (3-10), comprising in Khewat No.391. It has been stated in the application that the plaintiff has claimed that the disputed property is situated in Khasra No.54//2/1, 25/2 and sale deed regarding the same was executed by previous owner Shivalik Vihar through its general power of attorney Anil Kumar vide sale deed dated 8.2.2015 and possession was delivered to the plaintiff where she constructed the boundary walls. Whereas the defendants claimed to have purchased the disputed land after the sale in favour of the plaintiff on 11.2.2005 in which sale deed, Khasra Number is shown to be different than the Khasra numbers of the sale deed of the plaintiff as in the sale deed in favour of defendants-respondents Khasra number has been mentioned as 66/4/1 which is totally different than

[3] Khasra numbers shown in the sale deed of the plaintiff-petitioner. Thereby taking the advantage of illness of the plaintiff, the defendants demolished the side wall of the plot of plaintiff and had taken the illegal possession and the plaintiff was suffering from serious illness. In reply to the application, the defendants mainly stated that the defendants legally and lawfully purchased the property in question and had constructed the same and are enjoying the peaceful possession of the property in question since the time of purchase. Moreover, the suit property is situated in fully constructed zone and Shivalik Vihar is fully developed. It has been stated that in that circumstances demarcation is not possible.

The plaintiff by way of this application is trying to create the evidence and delaying the proceedings and prayed for dismissal of the application. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dera Bassi, vide impugned order dated 20.1.2016 dismissed the application. It has been held by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dera Bassi, that the plaintiff is claiming that she is owner of plot number 412-A situated in Shivalik Vihar and she purchased the same. It is also the case of the plaintiff that plot No.412-A, as mentioned as plot No.413, was not earmarked and the same was allotted as 412-A. But the defendants are denying that the plaintiff is owner of house plot No.412-A and have contended that there is no plot bearing number 412-A at Shivalik Vihar and the defendants have purchased the adjoining plots i.e.

412, 413 and 414 from Shivalik Vihar. A perusal of the record shows that firstly, both the parties plaintiff and defendants purchased the plots from Shivalik Vihar and the colony has been fully developed.

[4] find out the Khasra numbers. Further more, the plaintiff says that out of 8 Kanals 9 Marlas being 38/1521 share is in Khasra No.54//2/1 (4-19) and 25/2 (3-10). Further the Shivalik Vihar colony has allotted plot numbers and roads have also been constructed there and the colony is said to be fully developed. The vendor of both the plaintiff and the defendants is same person. The dispute is regarding the plot numbers which have been sold to the plaintiff and to the defendants. There may be site plan with the vendor, who had sold so many plots in Shivalik Vihar colony and this fact can be easily proved by bringing the record of Shivalik Vihar as to whether there is any plot No.412-A or not and also the situation of that plot.

Perusal of the record shows that no Local Commissioner can be appointed to demarcate the property to know the khasra numbers. When the properties in the sale deeds have also been described by the plot numbers, therefore, to demarcate the Khasra numbers is of no use. Rather, accepting of this application will mean that the plaintiff wants to get collected the evidence through the Court.

I have gone through the impugned order, which is correct as per evidence and law and does not require any interference of this Court and the same is upheld. No ground is made out for appointment of the Local Commissioner and the application has been rightly dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dera Bassi. Finding no merit in this civil revision petition, the same is accordingly dismissed.

May 22, 2018.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp*

[5] NOTE:

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No