Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Tulsi Ram & Ors v. SDO Water Services Sub Division Dadupur - RSA-3331-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 6336 (31 August 2006)

RSA No.3331 of 2006 -: 1 :-


RSA No.3331 of 2006

Date of decision: September 1, 2006.

Tulsi Ram & Others



SDO Water Services Sub Division Dadupur & Ors.


Present: Shri R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the appellants.

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs whose suit for permanent injunction has been dismissed by both the courts.

Briefly stated, the appellants' case is that they have constructed their houses in the subject land and are living therein from the last more than 50 years. In order to prove possession, it s averred that they have been granted electricity connections. According to the appellants, when a fire broke out in their huts in 1994, the compensation was also paid to them by the State Government.

Upon notice, the respondents contested the suit on the plea that the appellants are in unauthorized possession of the suit land which is a government property. It was stated that in order to evict the appellants in due course of law, petitions under Sections 4 and 5 of the Public Premises Act were filed against the appellants and the same were allowed by the Collector on 30.10.2001. The appellants preferred appeals under the RSA No.3331 of 2006 -: 2 :-

aforesaid Act which were also dismissed by the appellate authority on 28.2.2002. It was, thus, pleaded that the action to dispossess the appellants is being taken in a lawful manner.

Relying upon copy of the jamabandi for the year 1994-95 (Ex.D1), site plan (Ex.D2) and the orders passed by the Authority as well as the Appellate Authority respectively, under the Public Premises Act, (Ex.D3 and D4), the trial court dismissed the suit after holding that as the appellants have encroached upon the government land, the authorities are entitled to dispossess them in due course of law. The trial court also observed that the appellants-plaintiffs are guilty of concealing material facts, inasmuch as the fact that proceedings initiated under the Public Premises Act stood concluded against them, was not disclosed in the suit.

The plaintiffs then preferred an appeal which also met the same fate and has been dismissed by the learned District Judge, Yamuna Nagar vide his judgment and decree dated 1.4.2006.

Assailing the aforementioned judgments, Learned Counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon a letter dated 14.12.2001 purported to have been sent by the Superintending Engineer, YWS Circle, Karnal to the Executive Engineer, Water circle Division, Dadupur in which it is mentioned that the recovery of chakota amounting to Rs.4592/- be made for the years 1980-81 to 1997-98 for the reason that the subject persons (i.e.

appellants) have retained "unauthorized possession" of the government land measuring 0.41 acre. It is, however, argued that since the authorities have decided to recover chakota, it shall amount to accepting the appellants tenancy rights over the suit land.

After hearing Learned Counsel for the appellants, I do not find RSA No.3331 of 2006 -: 3 :-

merit in this appeal.

Firstly, the letter dated 14.12.2001 has not been produced in evidence. Secondly, even if its contents are taken on their face value, it recognizes the appellants as "unauthorized occupants" only. Thirdly, the plea that they are not unauthorized occupants and are entitled to continue as tenants, was available to the appellants in the proceedings under the Public Premises Act. The orders passed by the quasi-judicial authorities under the said Act having attained finality, the appellants cannot be permitted to get the said lis re-opened by filing a suit for injunction, especially when no declaration to set aside the orders Ex.D3 and D4 has been sought in the suit.

Having regard to the fact that both the courts have returned a concurrent finding of fact in respect of nature of possession of the appellants over the subject land and which does not give rise to any question of law, much less substantial question of law, warranting interference by this Court, I do not find any merit in this appeal.


September 1, 2006. [ Surya Kant ]

kadyan Judge


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.