BIRBAL vs. HARYANA STATE .

1 ITEM No. 1A                  Court No. 6                 SECTION IVB (For Judgment)                  S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                           RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS         CIVIL APPEAL NO. .... OF 2014 @ SLP(C) No. 15481 of 2008    BIRBAL Appellant (s)                               VERSUS HARYANA STATE AND ORS. Respondent (s) Date :  25/02/2014   This  Petition was called on for judgment today.           For Appellant (s) Dr. Kailash Chand, Adv.   For Respondent(s)  Mr. Manjit Singh, AAG, Ms. Nupur Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, Adv. Ms. Naresh Bakshi, Adv.                             Hon'ble   Mr.   Justice   C.Nagappan   pronounced Judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S.Thakur and  His Lordship. Leave granted.  The appeal is  disposed of  in terms of the signed  non­reportable judgment.   The appellant shall deposit the sale price of   a Signature Not Verified sum   of   Rs.3,94,108/­   with   Respondent   No.1   in     six Digitally signed by SHASHI SAREEN Date: 2018.08.11 11:41:08 IST Reason: installments.  The first installment of Rs.94,108/­ shall be deposited on or before 30.4.2014.   The balance amount 2 of Rs.3 lacs shall ­ be deposited in five installments of Rs.60,000/­ each at an interval of two months so as to complete the entire process by the end of February 2015. Upon   such   deposit   the   suit   shall   stand   decreed   in   his favour; in case of default in payment of the installments the appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to this Court.           (Shashi Sareen)    (Veena Khera)     Court Master     Court Master       Signed Non­Reportable judgment is placed on the file. 3                             NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.    2847     OF 2014 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.15481 of 2008] Birbal    ..       Appellant versus Haryana State & Ors.    ..    Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T C. NAGAPPAN, J.  1. Leave granted. 2. This   appeal   is   directed   against   the   judgment     dated 26.11.2007 passed by learned single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in RSA No.3720 of 2002. 3. The appellant filed the suit in Civil Suit No.66­C on the   file   of   Additional   Civil   Judge,   Sr.   Division, Fatehabad,   seeking   declaration   that   he   has   prescribed title to suit ­ 4. land measuring 1 kanal 2 marlas in village Gorakhpur by adverse possession and a further declaration for setting aside the auction dated 6.4.1983 in favour of Moti Ram, predecessor­in­interest   of     Respondents   2   to   7   in respect of the suit land and for permanent injunction against   the   defendants   from   taking   possession   of   the suit   land   from   him.     The   suit   was   contested   by respondent  No.1   and  2   herein  namely   State  of   Haryana 4 that the suit land was owned by the custodian department and was auctioned in favour of Moti Ram on 6.4.1983 and the possession could not be delivered as the plaintiff is in unauthorized occupation.   Respondents 3 to 7 also contested the suit.  The trial court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence decreed the suit as prayed for,   with   costs.     Respondent   Nos.1   and   2   herein challenged the same by preferring the appeal in Civil Appeal No.2 of 2002 on the file of Additional District Judge, Fatehabad and the appellate court after hearing both   sides   allowed   the   appeal   by   setting   aside   the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit.  Challenging the ­ 5. judgment   the   appellant     herein/plaintiff   preferred second appeal in RSA No.3720 of 2002 and the High Court held   that   no   substantial   question   of   law   arises   for consideration   and   it   is   open   to   the   State   to   take possession   of   the   suit   land   from   the   plaintiff   in accordance   with   law   and   thus   disposed   of   the   second appeal. 6. When   the   matter   was   listed   for   final   disposal   on 3.8.2012 this Court passed the following order: “After arguing the matter at some length learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without prejudice to  his rights  and contentions  in this appeal he is prepared to make a representation to the   Collector   Fatehabad   District   offering   to 5 purchase the suit property which measures around 1 kanal on payment of the market value of the land determined   under   the   prevalent   Rules   as   on   the subject. Mr.   Manjit   Singh,   learned   counsel   appearing for   the   respondent   had   no   objection   in   case   an offer is  made and  examined by  the Collector/the competent   authority.     We,   accordingly,   adjourn this matter  by three  months during  which period the   petitioner   may   make   a   representation   as indicated ­ above.     The   Collector   Custodian/competent authority   may   examine   and   respond   to   the   offer without   prejudice   to   the   contentions   that   are available to either side in this appeal.” 7. The   appellant   sent   representation   dated   9.11.2012   to Respondent No.1 namely the Collector, Fatehabad stating that  the  suit  land  may  be  sold  to  him  at  prevailing Government rate and he is ready to purchase it.   The Collector,     Fatehabad,   has   filed   affidavit   dated 22.11.2013 before this Court in which he has averred as follows: “I, Dr. Saket Kumar, I.A.S., Collector, Fatehabad Tehsil & District   Fatehabad (Haryana) do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:­ That   I   have   examined   the   representation   dated 09.11.2012   made   by   the   petitioner   whereby   the petitioner   Birbal   agreed   to   purchase   the   suit property   i.e.   1   kanal   2   marlas     comprised   in khasra   No.1264   situated   in   village   Gorakhpur Tehsil   &   District     Fatehabad   (Haryana)   on prevailing   collector   rate   and   the   said representation has been moved by the petitioner in compliance of the order dated 03.8.2012 passed by   this   Hon’ble   Court.     After   examining   the representation made by the petitioner Birbal, ­ I also recorded the statement of the petitioner Birbal   on   16.09.2013   keeping   in   view   the   fact that the petitioner is in unauthorized possession of the suit property for a long time. By way of the   statement   dated   16.9.2013,   the   petitioner 6 Birbal   agreed   to   purchase   the   suit   property measuring   1   kanal   2   marlas   comprised   in   khasra Nos.1264   at   the   rate   of   Rs.17,914.00   per   marla total amounting to Rs.3,94,108.00.   However, the petitioner   Birbal   on   account   of   his   poor financial   condition   expressed   his   inability   to make the payment together and offered to pay the same in six installments. That in case the directions are issued by this Hon’ble   Court   in   the   present   S.L.P.,   then   the plot shall be sold to the petitioner Birbal at the   rate   of   Rs.17,914.00   per     marla   total amounting to Rs.3,94,108.00 in respect of 1 kanal 2   marlas   of   plot   comprised   in   khasra   Nos.1264 situated in village Gorakhpur Tehsil & District Fatehabad (Haryana).” 8. The   appellant   has   also   filed   his   affidavit   dated 16.1.2014 stating that he is prepared to purchase the suit   land   at   the   prevailing   Government   rate   namely Rs.17,914/­ per Marla total amounting to Rs.3,94,108/­; if the same is made in six easy installments keeping in ­ 9. view     his   underprivileged   financial   condition   and inability to pay in one lump­sum. 10. We heard the counsel appearing on both sides and perused the records.   Admittedly, the appellant is in possession of the suit land for a long time as held by the   courts   below.     The   Collector   has   favourably considered   the   representation   and   assessed   the   market value of the suit land at a sum of Rs.3,94,108/­. Due to poor financial condition the appellant has sought for permission to pay the sale price in six installments.    7 11. We are of the considered view that it is a fit case for   exercise   of   our   power   under   Article   142   of   the Constitution of India for doing complete justice between the parties in the matter and we do so by disposing of the appeal in the following manner.  The appellant shall deposit the sale price of  a sum of Rs.3,94,108/­ with Respondent   No.1   in   six   installments.     The   first installment   of   Rs.94,108/­   shall   be   deposited   on   or before 30.4.2014.  The balance amount of Rs.3 lacs shall ­ 12. be   deposited   in   five   installments   of   Rs.60,000/­ each at an interval of two months so as to complete the entire process by the end of February 2015.  Upon such deposit the suit shall stand decreed in his favour; in case   of   default   in   payment   of   the   installments   the appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to this Court. ………………………….J.     (T.S. Thakur)         ……………………………J. (C. Nagappan) New Delhi; February  25, 2014.