K.C.PURI,J - (1.) IN this Regular Second Appeal, the plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decree dated 13.2.1991 passed by Mr.B. S. Sharma, the then Additional District Judge-II, Jind whereby he accepted the appeal filed by the State of Haryana against the judgment and decree dated 13.6.1989 delivered by Mr. G.L. Goyal, the then Senior Sub Judge, Jind.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for possession of land in dispute on the ground that the said land is owned by the plaintiff. The defendant through its Irrigation Department has taken forcible and illegal possession of the said land and as such the defendant is a trespasser. On demarcation of land made by the revenue officials, the plaintiff has come to know about illegal and forcible possession of the suit land by the defendant- State. The defendant-State contested the suit of the plaintiff. It pleaded that the land in dispute was acquired by the Erst-while Pepsu Government by the order of His Highness Rajpurmukh for a public purpose namely constructing SDO Colony at Jind for which notifications under Sections 4, 6 and 9 were published in the Gazette dated 25.6.1955 and after inviting objections from the interested persons, the said land was acquired and compensation was duly assessed and awarded to the owner which was deposited for payment to the owner in the Government Treasury. The defendant is owner in possession of the suit land and, therefore, the question of forcible possession as a trespasser did not arise. The defendant is not aware of any demarcation got done by the plaintiff because the said demarcation was without any notice to the defendant. When the suit land was acquired, it carried khasra numbers 499 to 503, 513,516 and 517 total measuring 6.06 acres but the plaintiff has no where given in the plaint that killa numbers have been formed in lieu of old khasra numbers and as such the plaint was defective and was liable to be rejected. The defendant-State has constructed SDO's Colony for the Irrigation Department and the suit property was in possession of Irrigation Department after the same was acquired. At the time, the suit land was acquired, there was no Trust in the name of Pyare Lal. The land owner was alive and the land was acquired by the then Pepsu Government for a public purpose against compensation and, therefore, the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit because he has no concern with the alleged Trust. The Irrigation Department had been in possession of suit land and the said possession has ripened into ownership by efflux of time. The land in dispute was acquired from deceased Pyare Lal in his life time and if the said land had been included in the Trust, it was an act beyond the authority of the creator of the Trust as he had no right to include the said land in the Trust. Some other preliminary objections were also taken.
(3.) FROM the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the suit land is owned by Pyare Lal Charitable Trust ? OPP. 2. Whether the defendant is in forcible and illegal possession of the suit land ? OPP. 3. Whether the court fee is sufficient ? OPP. 4. Whether the suit is within limitation ? OPP. 5. Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to file the present suit ? OPP. 6. Whether the Irrigation Department has become owner of the suit land by efflux of time ? OPD. 7. Whether a valid notice under section 80 CPC has been served upon the defendant ? OPD. 8. Relief. The learned trial Court decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff. As a result thereof, vide judgment and decree dated 13.6.1989, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. ;