R.S.A. No. 1402 of 2008 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No. 1402 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of decision: 13.1.2009
State of Haryana and others
....Appellants
Versus
Kanwal Singh and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Present: Mr. Madan Gupta, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Vikrant Hooda, Advocate,
for the respondents.
*****
VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL)
This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments
and decree dated 4.10.2006 and 10.10.2007 passed by the learned Courts
below vide which the suit for possession filed by the
plaintiff/respondents stands decreed by both the Courts.
The plaintiff/respondents brought a suit for possession on the
plea that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff was the owner of the
land in dispute which stands inherited by them.
The case set up was that the land in dispute was given as dholi
to one Bhooran as dholidar, who is stated to have expired without any
legal heir. Thus, it was claimed that the suit land reverted back to the
true owner and the plaintiffs being successors-in-interest were entitled to
possession of the land.
The suit was contested by the State on the plea that as Bhooran
R.S.A. No. 1402 of 2008 (O&M)
-2-
dholidar left behind no legal heirs, the land was mutated in favour of the
State, and is in possession since the year 1964, and that stand of the
plaintiff/respondents that they were dispossessed in the year 2000 was
patently wrong and not proved on record.
Both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of
fact holding the State to be unauthorised occupant, and possession of
State cannot be said to be adverse, as it cannot get title by way of
adverse possession.
The finding is based on the settled law by this Court in the
case of Gurbux Singh and others Vs. Hari Chand Jain and others,
2003(1) Latest Judicial Reports, 257, Bhajan Kaur Vs. Gurmej Singh,
2000(2) Latest Judicial Reports 405 and the judgment of Hon’ble
Madras High Court in P. Chelliah Vs. Mottayandi Thevar (died) and
others, 2003(1) Latest Judicial Reports 207.
Once the title by way of adverse possession was not proved
and the plaintiff/respondents are held to be owner of the property, they
were certainly entitled to decree for possession.
The, the learned Courts below on the material and evidence
brought on record have rightly decreed the suit filed by the
plaintiff/respondents, which does not call for any intereference by this
Court.
The appeal raises no substantial question of law for
consideration by this Court.
Otherwise also, appeal is barred by limitation. The appellant-
State has moved an application for condonation of delay on the plea that
the delay has occurred due to administrative procedure involved in
R.S.A. No. 1402 of 2008 (O&M)
-3-
taking decision in filing the appeal.
A positive stand has been taken in the application that the
grounds of appeal were drafted on 26.2.2008. In spite of this, the appeal
was filed only on 2.5.2008. No explanation is forthcoming for the delay
since 26.2.2008. No sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of
delay.
Consequently, the appeal is ordered to be dismissed on merits
as well as being time barred.
(Vinod K. Sharma)
Judge
January 13, 2009
R.S.