R.S.A. No. 3959 of 2008 1
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No. 3959 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 22.1.2009
The Punjab State through the Collector, District Gurdaspur & others
.......... Appellants
Versus
Bajo Ram
...... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Present : Mr. R.L. Gupta, Addl. A.G., Punjab
for the appellants.
****
VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
By way of this regular second appeal the State of Punjab
challenges the judgment and decree dated 2.1.2008 and 6.8.2008 passed by
the learned Courts below by claiming that the following substantial question
of law arises for consideration by this Court :-
1. Whether the respondent-plaintiff is entitled to possession
of the suit land ?
The respondent-plaintiff brought a suit for possession of land
measuring 2 kanals bearing khasra No. 33 R/3 and 33 R/9 situated in the
village Phulpiara Tehsil Pathankot District Gurdaspur on the basis of
ownership and title. It was claimed by the plaintiff that the appellants-State
has illegally raised construction on the land belonging to the plaintiff. The
plaintiff-respondent claimed to be co-sharer in possession of land measuring
R.S.A. No. 3959 of 2008 2
40 Kanas 13 Marlas.
The notice issued under Section 80 of the Code of Civil
Procedure was not replied to by the State.
The suit was contested, on the plea that plaintiff had not come
to the Court with clean hands. It was also claimed that the road over the
land in dispute was constructed about 20 years ago, and at that time the
plaintiff did not raise any objection, qua the encroachment of land. It was
also the case of the appellant-State that the suit had been filed to claim
compensation by considering the State to be soft target.
On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court pleased
to frame the following issues :-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit
land ? OPP
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable ?
OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff has not come to Court with clean
hands ? OPD
4. Relief.”
The learned Courts below on appreciation of evidence brought
on record and also keeping in view the admission made by the witnesses of
the defendant-State held that the plaintiff was owner of the land in dispute,
thus, entitled to seek possession, as no limitation is prescribed for seeking
possession ,on the basis of title.
The issue No.3 was also decided against the appellant-
defendants.
R.S.A. No. 3959 of 2008 3
Though, no plea of adverse possession was taken in the written
statement. However, in the arguments the appellant claimed to have become
owner by way of adverse possession.
The plea raised was rightly rejected as plea was also raised that
the suit was time barred. It is well settled law that State cannot claim to have
become owner by way of adverse possession.
The learned Courts below also held that there is no limitation
prescribed for claiming possession on the basis of title, thus, issue of
limitation was also decided against appellant.
The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that
the claim of the respondent / plaintiff was belated and, therefore, was not
maintainable. In support of this contention he has placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation Vs. Babu Ram 2006(3) S.C.T. 486.
The plea of the learned counsel for the State is totally
misconceived. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case referred to above,
was dealing with the claim by an employee against the State. It was in that
event that the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down that the
belated claim cannot be entertained.
However, in the present case the State wanted to usurp the
property of citizen, without following process of law. The plea of the State,
that the suit was to be dismissed being belated, cannot be accepted. The
suits are governed by law of Limitation. No limitation is prescribed for
claiming possession by owner on the basis of title.
The substantial question of law as claimed does not arise for
R.S.A. No. 3959 of 2008 4
consideration by this Court as there are no pleadings nor any plea was raised
for consideration by the Courts.
No merit.
Dismissed.
However, keeping in view the fact, that over the land in dispute
the road is running, the State would be at liberty to acquire the land in
accordance with law.
22.1.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE