Urmila Rani (Died) through her LRs vs Punjab State and Others

R.L. Anand, J.—Unsuccessful plaintiff Smt. Urmila Rani has filed the present Regular Second Appeal as an indigent person and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.9.1984 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Jalandhar who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 18.12.1981 passed by the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Jalandhar dismissing the money suit of the plaintiff-appellant.

The brief facts of the case are that Smt. Urmila Rani wife of Krishan Kumar filed a suit for possession of the plot shown in the red colour in the site plan attached with the plaint and in the alternative she claimed Rs. 30,000/- by way of compensation on the allegations that the land measuring 10 marlas detailed in para 1 of the plaint was purchased by her from Ram Rattan vide registered sale deed dated 24.3.1958. She had been away from Jalandhar for many years and on return she found that defendants No.1 to 3 had framed a development scheme including the aforesaid land of the plaintiff. The land was acquired. However, compensation had been illegally paid to defendants No. 4 to 7 who were not the owners of the plot in question. No notice was issued or served upon the plaintiff before the acquisition of the plot or before disbursing the compensation. She has a right either to recover the possession of the plot or the amount of compensation of Rs. 30,000/-.

Notice of the suit was given to the defendants. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 contested the suit on the ground that defendant No. 3 i.e. Jalandhar Improvement Trust had already deposited a compensation of Rs. 58,770.33P with the Tribunal (District Judge, Jalandhar) for payment to the owners. The plaintiff was not the owner of the property of the plot in'' dispute. Defendant Nos. 4 to 7 filed a separate written statement and their stand was that the plaintiff purchased some land and the area acquired vested in defendant No. 2. The land of these defendants had been acquired and they had been paid compensation.

From the above pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed the following issues:-

Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land? OPP

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to receive the amount of compensation for the acquisition of the land? If so to what amount? OPP

Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD

Whether the plaintiff is barred by her acts and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD

Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain this suit? OPD

Relief.

The parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their case and on the conclusion of the trial, issue No. 1 was decided with the observation that with the acquisition of the plot in question, the plaintiff did not remain owner of the same. Issue No. 2 was decided against the plaintiff. Issue No. 3 was decided in favour of the defendants. Similarly, issue No. 4 and 5 were decided against the plaintiff and finally the plaint was non-suited. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court Smt. Urmila Rani filed the appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, who vide impugned judgment and decree dated 28.9.1984 affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal and still aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present Regular Second appeal in forma pauperis.

I have heard Shri O.P. Hoshiarpuri, Advocate on behalf of the appellant and Mr. P.S. Chhina, Dy. A.G., Punjab on behalf of the State of Punjab.

Shri Hoshiarpuri by taking the assistance of the case law cited as Lal Beg v. Pohlu and others, 1967 P.L.J. 290, argued that the Courts below fell in error while holding that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred in trying the suit. Mr. Hoshiarpuri further submitted that admittedly the property belonged to the plaintiff as admitted by D.W. 1 Mehar Singh, the official, who was examined by defendants No. 1 to 3. It was obligatory on the part of the Trust and the Land Acquisition Collector to award the compensation to the rightful owner and the plaintiff was the owner of the plot in question and any compensation paid to wrong persons i.e. defendants No. 4 to 7 cannot affect the rights of the plaintiff. On the contrary it was argued by the Dy. Advocate General that the plaintiff opted wrong form while filing the suit in the Civil Court. Her remedy lies to approach the Tribunal or to the Collector for award of compensation of her land if she had proved herself to be the owner of the site in question.

After considering the rival contentions of the parties, I am of the considered view that the appellant has no case irrespective of the fact that it might have been proved by her that she was the owner of the plot in question. The proved facts show that the area including the disputed site was acquired by the Trust and the Land Acquisition Collector gave award on 29.10.1965. The matter was referred to the Tribunal under the Town Improvement Act and it also gave the judgment on 14.5.1970. The award of the Collector was duly published as required u/s 42 of the Town Improvement Act. It is a due notice to every owner of the land which have been acquired by the trust. The plaintiff ought to have approached the Land Acquisition Collector or the Tribunal for the proving her own issue. She had opted the wrong form by approaching the Civil Court for the recovery of the possession and in the alternative for the recovery of the amount. Even otherwise, the suit of the plaintiff was also not within limitation. It was filed on 30.1980 when the award by the Collector was passed on 29.10.1965. Judgment by the Tribunal was passed on 14.5.1965. The suit ought to have been filed within six years from the date of the award of the Collector and within 3 years from the date of the passing of the judgment by the Tribunal as rightly remarked in para No. 16 of the judgment of the trial Court. The authority which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellate is not applicable to the facts in hand. The plaintiff has not given challenge to the acquisition proceedings. Her sole grouse is that the compensation has been allegedly paid to the wrong persons who were not the owners of the site in question. This point could be agitated by her before the Land Acquisition Collector or in the reference proceedings before the Tribunal.

Resultantly, I do not see any merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.