State of Haryana and Another vs Ram Chander and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—Defendants no. 1 and 2 (State of Haryana and Tehsildar Sales) are in second appeal. Respondents/plaintiffs filed suit

against the appellants as defendants no. 1 and 2 and against Municipal Committee, Nilokheri defendant no. 3 (not party to the instant second

appeal). Policy of Government was published in newspaper dated 24.7.1988 inter alia to the effect that persons in illegal possession of land

belonging to Rehabilitation Department of the State on or before 1.1.1982 and having raised substantial construction were entitled to purchase the

same at reserve price. Pursuant thereto, the plaintiffs who claimed to be in possession of the suit land measuring 2 Kanals 2 Marlas for the last

more than 40 years and having constructed their houses thereon, applied through Dhanak Sabha to the State for transfer of the suit land to them

under the said policy. Since the defendants did not accept the request of the plaintiffs, suit was filed by the plaintiffs seeking declaration that they

are owners in pos session of the suit land pursuant to the aforesaid policy.

Defendants no. 1 and 2 resisted the suit and inter alia pleaded that Dhanak Sabha applied for transfer of the suit land by way of negotiation and

after considering the request of Dhanak Sabha, the application was filed (rejected) by the competent authority as Dhanak Sabha has no legal right

in the suit property. It was thus pleaded that the plaintiffs are liable to be evicted from the suit property and the aforesaid policy (dated 11.7.1988)

is not applicable to the plaintiffs as they did not give their consent within stipulated period of 10 days after service of notice dated 20.11.1991.

Learned trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. However, first appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has been allowed by learned lower

appellate court and thereby suit filed by the plaintiffs has been decreed directing the defendants to consider the case of the plaintiffs under

Government policy dated 11.7.1988 (Ex. PB) and to transfer the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs on payment of reserve priced as per aforesaid

policy. Feeling aggrieved, defendants no. 1 and 2 have filed this second appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Counsel for the appellants contended that respondents/plaintiffs had to apply individually for allotment of the sites in their occupation in

accordance with policy and they could not apply collectively through Dhanak Sabha and therefore, request of Dhanak Sabha for transfer of the suit

land has been rightly rejected. It was also contended that the plaintiffs did not apply individually pursuant to notice dated 20.11.1991 and

therefore, they have no right to transfer of the suit land In their favour under the aforesaid policy. Bar of jurisdiction of civil court by section 36 of

the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (in short, the Act) was also canvassed.

I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions but the same cannot be accepted. It is undisputed that the Government had framed policy

conveyed vide letter dated 11.7.1988 Ex. PB for transfer of land of the Rehabilitation Department to illegal occupants thereof subject to terms and

conditions mentioned in the said policy. Accordingly, the plaintiffs collectively applied for allotment of the suit land to them by moving application

through Dhanak Sabha representing them. Defendant no. 1 State even accepted the said request vide letter dated 7.8.1990 Ex. D1 and it was

decided to transfer the suit land against reserve price of Rs. 1 lac. However, this decision of the State Government was never conveyed to the

plaintiffs or Dhanak Sabha. Defendants have failed to prove that this decision was conveyed to the plaintiffs or to Dhanak Sabha Consequently, the

plaintiffs suffered because of fault of the defendants in not conveying the aforesaid decision of the Government to them.

In addition to the aforesaid, as per policy Ex. PB, Tehsildar (Sales) had to send individual notices to eligible occupants in prescribed proforma

to be delivered through Process Server or by registered post. In the instant case, there is no plea or evidence to depict that any such notice

pursuant to the policy was sent to or served on the plaintiffs. On the contrary, the defendants in their written statement referred to notice No.

K30/15291/G.IV dated 20.11.1991 and pleaded that the plaintiffs did not give their consent within stipulated period of 10 days after service of

said notice. However, the alleged communication dated 20.11.1991 has been produced in evidence by the defendants as Ex. D2. This

communication has been sent by the State to Tehsildar (Sales) intimating that the application filed by Dhanak Sabha had been considered and filed.

Even this communication was not sent to the plaintiffs or Dhanak Sabha. Moreover, this communication is not a notice which was required to be

sent by Tehsildar (Sales) to eligible occupants under policy Ex. PB. On the contrary, the plaintiffs through Dhanak Sabha had already applied to

the defendants for transfer of the suit land to mem under the policy. Defendant no. 1 had even decided to transfer the suit land to the plaintiffs for

Rs. 1 lac, but the said decision was never conveyed to the plaintiffs or their representative body Dhanak Sabha. Consequently, suit of the plaintiffs

has been rightly decreed by the lower appellate court because it is undisputed that the plaintiffs have constructed their houses on the suit land and

are, therefore, covered by the policy.

Contention of counsel for the appellants that jurisdiction of civil court is barred by section 36 of the Act also cannot be accepted because the

plaintiffs are not questioning the evacuee nature of the suit property. On the contrary, the plaintiffs are seeking transfer of the suit land to them

under the policy Ex. PB prepared by defendant no. 1 State itself. Learned State counsel for the appellants could not refer to any other mechanism

to which the plaintiffs could resort to, to enforce their civil right under the policy. Consequently, it cannot be said that jurisdiction of the civil court is

barred by section 36 of the Act. The civil court is the only forum where an individual can enforce his civil right. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no

merit in this second appeal.

No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for adjudication in this second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.