Full Judgment Text
1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. NO. 126775 OF 2017
IN
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 1515 OF 2017
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6988 OF 2009
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BAWAL & ANR. APPELLANT(s)
VERSUS
BABU LAL & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. I.A.No. 126775 of 2017 – appeal against
Registrar's Order of Lodgement dated 27.03.2017 is
allowed. Delay in filing the application for
restoration is condoned and the application for
restoration is allowed. The order dated 03.06.2016
dismissing the appeal is hereby recalled.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. We
find that there are concurrent findings of fact, one
by the first appellate court and the other by the
High Court. Paragraphs 13 & 14 of the Judgment of
the first appellate court read as follows :-
“13. The Municipal Council filed
objections against the report of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
JAYANT KUMAR ARORA
Date: 2018.01.17
11:34:19 IST
Reason:
Local Commissioner, but did not
examine him to clarify the
measurements and the demarcation
carried out at the spot. DW1
2
T.R.Sharma, Secretary of the
Municipal Committee, Bawal in his
affidavit Ex. D1/A stated that report
of the Local Commissioner was not
correct because he had not affixed
three pucca points and that at the
time of demarcation, representative
Om Prakash Clerk of the Committee had
objected to it but in order to prove
the same neither said Om Prakash was
produced nor the Local Commissioner
was examined regarding the objection
if any.
14. A perusal of the report Ex. PF
of the Local Commissioner would
reveal that pucca point were affixed
and the measurements were carried out
at the spot. On the other hand, the
defendant/Municipal Committee did not
produce any demarcation report which
they might have obtained before
raising the construction of the road
and the drain. ”
3. In the impugned Judgment, the High Court has
entered a finding based on the report that it was the
appellants who had encroached upon the part of the
land of the plaintiffs without acquiring the same.
Further, it was held that :-
“It was the stand of the defendant in
the written statement that the land
measuring 1 kanal on the
western-southern side was owned by
3
one Satbir Singh. The plaintiffs
have purchased the said 1 kanal from
Satbir Singh. Therefore, the
defendants cannot deny the title of
the plaintiffs over such land. The
Tehsildar was appointed as Local
Commissioner to demarcate the suit
land. Such demarcation has been
carried out in accordance with law
and in the presence of the
representative of the Municipal
Council. The Tehsildar was not
cross-examined in respect of the
process of demarcation.”
4. In that view of the matter, we do not find any
merit in the appeal, which is, accordingly,
dismissed.
.......................J.
[ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
.......................J.
[ AMITAVA ROY ]
New Delhi;
January 10, 2018.
4
ITEM NO.8 COURT NO.5 SECTION IV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
I.A. NO. 126775 OF 2017 IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 1515 OF
2017 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6988 OF 2009
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BAWAL & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
BABU LAL & ORS. Respondent(s)
(FOR APPEAL AGAINST REGISTRARS ORDER XV RULE 5 ON IA 126775/2017)
Date : 10-01-2018 This application was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh, AOR
Mr. Surjeet Singh, Adv.
Dr. Pooja Jha, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
I.A.No. 126775 of 2017 – appeal against Registrar's Order of
Lodgement dated 27.03.2017 is allowed. Delay in filing the
application for restoration is condoned and the application for
restoration is allowed. The order dated 03.06.2016 dismissing the
appeal is hereby recalled.
The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed non-reportable
Judgment.
(JAYANT KUMAR ARORA) (RENU DIWAN)
COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)