CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.354 OF 2009 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 12, 2009
Karma
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
The Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana Civil
Secretariat, Chandigarh and others.
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner claims that land measuring 12 K and 18 M
was mutated in his name on the basis of a decree passed by the civil
Court on 7.10.1963. Respondent No.5 challenged this decree by
filing a civil suit, claiming himself to be in possession of this land in
the year 1989. The civil suit was decreed on 19.8.1996, holding
respondent No.5 to be owner in possession. The decree in favour of
the petitioner dated 7.10.1963 was set-aside. The appeal filed by the
petitioner against this judgment and decree was also dismissed on
18.5.1999. Respondent No.5 took a stand that he was dispossessed
during the pendency of the appeal and accordingly he was given
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.354 OF 2009 :{ 2 }:
relief of possession, holding that he had indeed been so
dispossessed by the petitioner during the pendency of the litigation.
On 26.8.1999, respondent No.5 filed a suit for damages claiming
mesne profits from 1983 to 1999 to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-.
Petitioner raised objection for maintainability of a civil suit on the
ground of jurisdiction. Respondent No.5 also filed an application for
return of the plaint for presenting it before the Court of competent
jurisdiction. Civil Court accordingly returned the plaint for presenting
the same before competent Forum. Accordingly respondent No.5
filed the petition for damages before Assistant Collector Ist Grade.
Assistant Collector Ist Grade has allowed this petition, directing the
petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.58,230/- i.e. the entire crop from Khariff
1997 to Khariff 1999. The appeal filed by the petitioner before
Collector is also dismissed and so also is the fate of the revision and
R.O.R filed before the Financial Commissioner. Alleging that the
orders passed by the revenue authorities are patently erroneous
inasmuch as they did not have the jurisdiction to decide the suit for
damages, the present writ petition has been filed.
Prayer is that such a suit for damages could have been
filed before the Civil Court and not before the revenue authorities.
Counsel for the petitioner would also submit that there was no
relationship of landlord and tenant, yet the suit for damages claiming
mesne profits was allowed.
I am unable to accept the submission made by counsel
for the petitioner. Initially, respondent No.5 had filed a civil suit,
wherein the petitioner raised an objection and accordingly the plaint
was returned for presenting before the revenue officials. He can not
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.354 OF 2009 :{ 3 }:
now turn around and say that the revenue Courts would not have
jurisdiction since there was no relationship of landlord and tenant and
that the suit could be decided by the Civil Court. The finding by the
Civil Court earlier was also that the petitioner was dispossessed
during the pendency of litigation and hence, the respondent No.5
was well within his rights to seek damages, which indeed was done.
It was only on the objection raised by the petitioner that respondent
No.5 had approached the revenue Courts and hence, the petitioner
can not now be heard to make a complaint against the same. No
case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction, thus, is made out.
Dismissed.
January 12, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE