- (1.) The crux of the facts, which needs a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record (judgment Annexure P4), is that Chatter Singh son of Lakha Singh had purchased the land in question from Bal Singh and his two brothers on 15.6.1971. At that time, suits for pre-emption were very common. Therefore, with a view to avoid litigation, he persuaded Bal Singh and his two brothers to execute the lease deed dated 14.6.1971 in favour of Darbara Singh son of Prem Singh-complainant respondent (for brevity "the complainant"). On 16.3.1979, Chatter Singh entered into an agreement to sell the same land with Dera Sat Kartar (for short "the Dera"), through its Secretary, petitioner Jagir Singh. Since Chatter Singh (vendor) did not execute the sale deed, so, the Dera filed the suit, bearing No.265 of 1991 for a decree of specific performance of the agreement against Chatter Singh and two others. In that suit, a compromise was arrived at between the parties and the suit was decreed by the Civil Court on 26.3.1994 in terms of compromise in the following manner:- "The parties have compromised the matter with the intervention of the Lok Adalat. The statements of the parties and their counsel have been recorded separately. In view of the statements of the parties and the compromise Ex.C-1, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed. A decree for specific performance of the agreement dated 16.3.1989 in respect of land measuring 102 Kanals 6 Marlas, as detailed in para F of the compromise for payment of Rs.41,17,192/- is ordered to be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant no.1, leaving the parties to bear their own costs, while the suit of the plaintiff qua defendant no.2 and 3 stands dismissed as withdrawn, in view of the statement made by the plaintiff of even date. The entire sale consideration of Rs.41,17,192/- (besides Rs.6,00,000/- as earnest money already paid), has been made vide cheque No.009440 dt.29.04.1994 drawn on Punjab National Bank, New Jawahar Nagar, Jalandhar, which has been handed over by the plaintiff to the defendant in court and photo copy of the same has been retained on the record. The defendant is directed to execute and get registered the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in accordance with the terms of compromise Ex.C-1 and the said compromise Ex.C-1 may be made form of the decree. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. File be consigned to record room."
(2.) Meanwhile, the complainant filed a suit, bearing No.123 on 3.2.1994 against Chatter Singh and the Dera for a decree of declaration to the effect that rapat roznamcha dated 11.10.1984 prepared by the patwari and the changes made in the Khasra Girdawari and jamabandi were illegal and he was a lessee on the basis of lease deed. He also sought a decree for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from taking forcible possession or interfering with his peaceful possession over the suit land. On 22.4.1994 Darbara Singh appeared in the civil court and made his statement that he does not want to proceed with and the civil suit was dismissed as withdrawn on his statement.
(3.) After dismissal of the suit, the complainant again filed CWP, bearing No.5204 of 1994 with the same very allegations that vide registered lease deed dated 14.6.1971, the land in dispute was given to him on lease for a period of 99 years and on the next day i.e. 15.6.1971, Bal Singh, Mohinder Singh and Shiv Dev Singh had executed a sale deed in favour of Chatter Singh and possession of the land continued with him as a lessee. He further alleged that Chatter Singh and the office bearers of the Dera connived with the revenue authorities and got khasra girdawari changed in their favour by entering false rapat roznamcha on 11.10.1984. According to the complainant that Chatter Singh and office bearers of the Dera joined hands to throw him out of the land in question and with the active help of Sanjeev Gupta, SSP, Jalandhar and his subordinates, they forced him to make a statement for withdrawal of the suit. In the background of these allegations, he prayed that the statement made and the document signed by him while in illegal custody of the police between 20.4.1994 and 22.4.1994 may be declared illegal and appropriate action be taken against the accused.;