Shri. Tara Chand Alias Taru vs Shri. Rameshwar Dass and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.—This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3.4.2012 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the present appellant and allowed the writ petition filed by the private respondents and directed the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Nalagarh to put the private respondents in possession of the land. The undisputed facts are that the present appellant had purchased some land in an undivided khata from one Sh.Daya Nand in the year 1950. The case of the appellant is that the appellant purchased 15 bighas and one biswas of land in village Bhatauli Kalan, Tehsil Baddi, District Solan, H.P. for a consideration of Rs.1200/-. Undoubtedly, the khata had not been separated and this fact is not denied and this finding has attained finality in other proceedings. It appears that Daya Nand had in fact sold large chunks of land much beyond his share and by the time he sold land to the present appellant he in fact had no land left in the joint khata. Therefore, in partition proceedings it was held that the appellant had no land in the joint khata.

The main issue raised by Sh.Vaid is that since the appellant had no land in joint khata he could not be treated to be a co-sharer and therefore the revenue authorities have no right to handover possession of the land to the private respondents and as such prays that the judgment of the learned Single Judge directing the Revenue Authorities to put the private respondents in possession of the land consequent to the warrant of possession be set-aside.

We are not at all in agreement with the contention of Sh.Vaid. It may be true that now it has been found that the appellant cannot have any land out of the joint Khata but the fact is that the right of the appellant emanates from Daya Nand who was admittedly a co-sharer. A vendee can never be on a higher footing then the vendor. What was purchased by the appellant was a share in the land and now that it has been found that Daya Nand had nothing remaining to be sold then the appellant cannot now claim that he should not be deprived of his possession in partition proceedings and the respondents should be compelled to file a suit in which the appellant can raise the piratical right of adverse possession.

In writ jurisdiction, this Court acts as a court of equity as well as court of law. The learned single Judge has rightly held that the real owners of the property should not be deprived of the possession of the suit land especially when the suit land was shown to be a jointly owned. In our view the learned single Judge rightly allowed the CWP No.12 of 2010 and dismissed the petition filed by the present appellant. We find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.