State of Haryana through the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon and another vs Murti Devta Mandir Parsoon Badkhal and another

J.V. Gupta, J.

This is defendant''s second appeal against whom suit for possession has been decreed by both the Courts below.

The controversy in this case relates to the land measuring 41 kanals 4 marlas. According to the plaintiff, the land is the "Muafi of Devta Mandir Parsoon Badkhal" which is in possession of the same and the expenses of the said temple are being met from the income derived from the suit land since long. According to the plaintiff, the Gram Panchayat of village Badkhal defendant No. 3 vide resolution dated 29.1.1971 transferred the suit land to the Tourism Department of the State of Haryana vide mutation No. 1211 dated 20.1.1972 sanctioned in its favour. The plaintiff has challenged the impugned transfer of the suit land alleging it to be illegal wrong, void and not binding upon it. It was pleaded that the said Gram Panchayat had no right whatsoever to transfer the suit land apart from Killa No. 47/8 in which the building of the temple is raised, to the Tourism Department.

The suit was contested, inter alia, on the ground that the plaintiff was not in possession of the land as Muafidar owner as alleged. The transfer of the land in suit by the Gram Panchayat to the Tourism Department was stated to be valid and for consideration. The trial Court found that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land as Muafidar and that the suit land has been wrongly transferred by the Gram Panchayat to defendants No. 1 and 2 which does not affect the right of the plaintiff to defendants No. 1 and 2 which does not affect the right of the plaintiff in it and that defendants No. 1 and 2 have wrongly and unlawfully taken possession of the suit land. In view of these findings, the plaintiff''s suit was decreed. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, affirmed the said findings of the trial Court and thus maintained the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff.

The learned counsel for the State of Haryana defendant submitted that since the plaintiff has been held to be Muafidar and that being so, its status will be that of the tenant and if the tenant was illegally dispossessed, the proper remedy was to approach the revenue Court. Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the matter. In support of this contention, he referred to Bhag Singh and others v. Jawahar Singh and others, 1955 P.L.R. 226.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I do not find any merit in this contention. No such plea was taken in the written statement rather it was denied that the plaintiff was the Muafidar or the tenant on the suit land. Once the tenancy rights were denied by the defendants then the civil Court had the jurisdiction to decide the matter. The judgment, referred to above, has no applicability to the facts of the present case. In these circumstances, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.