MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE Vs. SIKANDAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Municipal Committee, Sirhind, through its Executive Officer, has filed the present appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.10.1979, passed by the court of the Distt. Judge, Patiala, who set aside the findings of the trial court and declared the plaintiff Sukhinder Singh son of Patisar Singh, not only in possession of the property but also the owner of the suit land and that the Committee had no concern with the suit land. Consequently, the Committee was restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Sukhinder Singh filed a suit for declaration and for permanent injunction against the Committee to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land measuring 25 kanals fully described in the head note of the plaint and further sought an injunction restraining the defendant Municipal Committee and its servants from interfering in his possession. The case set up by the plaintiff in the trial court was that he is resident of Sirhind and is Khewatdar of Sirhind. The land under dispute is situated at Sirhind and the plaintiff is in peaceful cultiyating possession of the same as owner since his fore-fathers. The land in suit was a shamlat of village Sirhind and being a co-sharer and Khewatdar of the village Sirhind, grand father of the plaintiff was earlier in peaceful cultivating possession of the land as owner and as co-sharer of the shamlat land. On the death of the grand father of the plaintiff, the father of the plaintiff came into possession as owner being a co-sharer of the shamlat land of Sirhind. His father remained in possession till 16.6.1968 on which date a family settlement took place between the plaintiff and his father and the land measuring 39 kanals 5 marlas situated at Sirhind which was the ancestral property of the plaintiff and his father was transferred in favour of the plaintiff along with other rights appertaining to the land and the share in the shamlat which is the land in suit. Since 16.6.1968, the plaintiff is in continuous possession of the suit land as owner. The plaintiff spent a sum of Rs. 7,000/- on the improvement of the land in dispute. On 30.4.1973, the defendant-Committee, in connivance with the revenue authorities got sanctioned mutation of the suit land in the name of Municipal Committee, Sirhind, illegally and against law and without any notice to the plaintiff. The plaintiff came to know of the same on 18.1.1975. According to the plaintiff, the land in suit is not situated in the revenue limits of Sirhind and it does not vest in the Municipal Committee and that the Committee has no concern with the same but the defendant-Committee wants to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land on the basis of the wrong mutation entered. Hence, the plaintiff prayed for a declaration and injunction.

(3.) Notice of the suit was given to the Committee, which contested the claim of the plaintiff by stating that the plaintiff was not in possession of the land as owner nor his fore-fathers were in possession of the suit land as owner. The property in dispute is owned and vests in the defendant. The plaintiff is a trespasser and separate proceedings are pending before the Collector, Bassi, for the eviction of the plaintiff from the disputed land. The plaintiff never made any improvement. The mutation has been rightly sanctioned in favour of the Municipal Committee. The plaintiff did not serve any notice before filing the present suit and the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. In short, the defence of the Committee was that the land in suit vests in it.