JUDGMENT

S.S. SARON, J. –

CM No.3188 of 2013

1. The civil miscellaneous application has been filed for recalling the order dated 15.02.2013 in terms of which Review Application No.420 of 2009 was dismissed for non-prosecution.

2. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate appearing for respondent No.4 has no serious objection if the CM for recalling the order dated 15.02.2013 is allowed.

3. For the reasons stated in the civil miscellaneous application, the order dated 15.02.2013 is recalled and the review application is restored to its original number.

RA No.420 of 2009

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. The review application has been filed by the petitioner Mohinder Singh seeking review of the order dated 28.07.2009 passed by this Court whereby the petition filed by him assailing the appointment of Baljit Singh (respondent No.4) as Lambardar of Village Agwar Gujran, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana has been dismissed. It is submitted by the petitioner/review-applicant that Baljit Singh (respondent No.4) in fact concealed material facts from this Court, which led to the passing of the said order dated 28.07.2009. The same it is submitted is clear from the order dated 06.08.2007 (Annexure P-1) attached with the review application. Along with review application seeking review of the order dated 28.07.2007, CM No.17954 of 2009 has been filed seeking condonation of 74 days' delay in filing the review application.

6. This Court vide order dated 28.07.2009 dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner/review applicant-Mohinder Singh in which the appointment of Baljit Singh (respondent No.4) as Lambardar of Village Agwar Gujjran, Tehsil Jagraon Distt. Ludhiana was assailed. In the review application, it is primarily sought to be contended that in fact Baljit Singh (respondent No.4) who has been appointed as Lambardar of Village Agwar Gujjran, Tehsil Jagraon, Distt. Ludhiana had grabbed Government land. The review application was taken up on 12.11.2009 on which date the following order was passed:-

“Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Baljit Singh (respondent No.4) is in unauthorized occupation of land which is evident from the order dated 6.8.2007 (Annexure P1) attached with the review application. A perusal of the said order shows that plaintiff No.15 therein is one Baljit Singh son of Samer Singh whereas respondent No.4 in the writ petition is Baljit son of Sarwan Singh. Even the addresses are different.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for time to submit that plaintiff No.15 in the order dated 6.8.2007 (Annexure P1) attached with the review application and respondent No.4 in the writ petition are one and the same person.

On his request, adjourned to 17.12.2009.”

7. Thereafter, on 22.01.2010, learned counsel for the review-applicant submitted that Baljit (respondent No.4) sometimes mentions his name as Daljit Singh and at times as Baljit Singh. He also submitted that his father's name sometimes is mentioned as Sarwan Singh and sometimes as Samer Singh. It was submitted that respondent No.4 had grabbed Government land, which fact could not be brought to the notice of this Court and was concealed by respondent No.4. Accordingly notice of the review application was issued to Advocate General, Punjab and respondent No.4.

8. Mr. K. S. Hissowal, Advocate for the review applicant has referred to the order of the Civil Court dated 06.08.2007 (attached as Annexure A-1 with the review application) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagraon in which it is submitted that Baljit Singh (respondent No.4 herein) is plaintiff No.15. It is submitted that in the said order the injunction which the plaintiffs had sought with regard to the illegal encroachments of government land was declined. This according to learned counsel for the review applicant would show that the encroachment on the part of Baljit Singh (respondent No.4) over the Government land stands established. On 12.07.2013, learned counsel for the review applicant had referred to the said order dated 06.08.2007 (Annexure A-1 attached with the review application) and had prayed for time to ascertain the final outcome of the said civil suit. On his request, the case was adjourned. The review applicant then filed CM No.12463-64-CII of 2013 for placing on record documents Annexure A-7 to Annexure A-9. Annexure A-7 is a copy of the plaint filed by the plaintiffs including plaintiff No.15-Baljit Singh son of Samer Singh; Annexure A-8 is the order dated 29.05.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagraon whereby the plaintiffs have withdrawn their suit. Annexure A-9 is the order dated 03.01.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ludhiana against the order dated 06.08.2007 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagraon by which the appeal of the plaintiffs including plaintiff No.15 -Baljit Singh son of Samer Singh has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the review applicant has also referred to the documents Annexure A-5 and Annexure A-6. Annexure A-5 is a bail bond executed by one Charanjit Kaur wife of Karma Singh which is attested by Baljit Singh son of Samer Singh; while Annexure A-6 is a power of attorney executed by one Kartar Kaur widow of Shri Bakhtaur Singh and is witnessed by Baljit Singh son of Samer Singh with the seal of Lambardar, Agwar Gujran. On the strength of the said documents Annexure A-5 and A-6, it is submitted that Bajit Singh son of Samer Singh in fact is Baljit Singh (respondent No.4) and he is one and the same person and he is attesting documents of the villagers as a Lambardar. Learned counsel for the review applicant has also contended that Baljit Singh (respondent No.4) has filed an affidavit before the Collector that he is not a defaulter and had not encroached any Government land. On being asked about the said affidavit, it is stated he would bring a copy of the same. Admittedly particulars regarding the said affidavit are not on record.

9. In response, Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.4 has submitted that the review application is barred by 74 days and even otherwise is liable to be dismissed on merits. It is submitted that respondent No.4-Baljit Singh is the son of Sarwan Singh and is not the son of Samer Singh. Even otherwise he is a resident of Kukkar Bazar, Jagraon and not of Sherpura Road, Jagraon as is mentioned in the plaint (Annexure A-7). It is submitted with reference to the vernaculars of the documents Annexure A-5 and Annexure A-6 that only photocopies of the same have been placed on record, which would in any case show that the father's name of Baljit Singh is mentioned as 'Samer Singh' in Annexure A-5 and that it has been interpolated later on. It is submitted that the vernacular of Annexure A-5 would show that the handwriting with which name of 'Samer Singh' is written is of a different handwriting; besides, a perusal of the power of attorney Annexure A-6, which is a typed document would show that the typing had been done later as it cuts across the line where the signatures of Kartar Kaur were to be put. It is also submitted that the other witness on document Annexure A-6 is Jagga Singh, Lambardar but his father's name is not mentioned whereas father's name of Baljit Singh is mentioned and typed as 'Samer Singh'. In fact there was no occasion to type the name of the father of Baljit Singh which according to learned counsel for respondent No.4 is a clear interpolation as would be evident from the typing. A reference has also been made to the reply to the review application filed by respondent No.4-Baljit Singh in which it is specifically denied that respondent No.4-Baljit Singh was not plaintiff No.15 in the suit (Annexure A-7) of which a reference has been made by the learned counsel for the review applicant. It is submitted that respondent No.4 is not known by the name of Baljit Singh son of Samer Singh. It is submitted that respondent No.4 is Baljit Singh son of Sarwan Singh; besides, a reference has been made to the certificate dated 03.03.2010 (Annexure R4/1) issued by Shri Raj Kumar Kaushal, Advocate Civil Courts, Jagraon in which he has verified that Baljit Singh son of Swaran Singh (sic. Sarwan Singh) presently Lambardar, Agwar Gujjran-III is not a petitioner (sic. plaintiff) in Civil case titled 'Bikramjit Singh versus Union of India' which is pending in the Court of Sh. Rajiv Kumar Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jagraon and the next date of which is 27.03.2010. It is further stated by Shri Raj Kumar Kaushal, Advocate Jagraon that he is the standing counsel and appears on behalf of the petitioners/ plaintiffs. The civil suit Annexure A-7 is titled 'Bikramjit Singh v. Union of India.' On the strength of the said certificate dated 03.03.2010 (Annexure R4/1) issued by Shri Raj Kumar Kaushal, Advocate Civil Courts, Jagraon , it is submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.4 that the said certificate (Annexure R-4/1) given by the Advocate clearly goes to show that respondent No.4 is not a party in the civil suit in which it is alleged that an injunction was sought in respect of Government land that is alleged to have been encroached upon and that a false claim has been raised. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no ground to condone the delay in filing the review application and even on merits, the review application is wholly misconceived and mischievous and the grounds now urged were never the grounds taken before any of the revenue authorities or in this Court when the writ petition was filed.

10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. As already noticed that this Court by a detailed order passed on 28.07.2009 had dismissed the petition of the petitioner-Mohinder Singh assailing the appointment of Baljit Singh (respondent No.4) as Lambardar of Village Agwar Gujjran. The question that has now been raised is that Baljit Singh son of Samer Singh is in unauthorised occupation of the Government land and in a suit filed by him along with other plaintiffs a prayer for an interim injunction was made, which has been declined vide order dated 06.08.2007 (Annexure A- 1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagraon and appeal against the same has also been dismissed vide order dated 03.01.2011 (Annexure A-9) passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ludhiana. In fact a strong reliance was primarily placed on the order dated 06.08.2007 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagraon and the order dated 03.01.2011 (Annexure A-9) passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ludhiana in appeal against the order dated 06.08.2007 (Annexure A-1). It is not in dispute that the said orders dated 06.08.2007 (Annexure A-1) and dated 03.01.2011 (Annexure A-9) are on an application seeking temporary ad-interim injunction. The suit filed by the plaintiffs including plaintiff No.15 Baljit Singh has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 29.05.2012 (Annexure A-8). Therefore, with the dismissal of the civil suit, the interim orders that were passed no longer survive and these are not liable to be taken into consideration for holding that respondent No.4 is in unauthorized occupation of Government land even if it is to be taken that plaintiff No.15 Baljit Singh is the same Baljit Singh who is respondent No.4 herein. In fact respondent No.4-Baljit Singh has completely denied that he has been a party to the civil litigation on the basis of which the order dated 06.08.2007 (Annexure A-1) and order dated 03.01.2011 (Annexure A-9) were passed. In the reply to the review application it has been submitted that respondent No.4 is Baljit Singh son of Sarwan Singh and is not Baljit Singh son of Samer Singh. Reliance on the documents Annexure A-5 and Annexure A-6 which contain attestations by Baljit Singh (respondent No.4) of a bail bond executed by one Charanjit Kaur and Power of Attorney of Kartar Kaur respectively according to learned counsel for respondent No.4 contain interpolations. These are purely disputed questions of facts and this Court is not go into the same in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction. The affidavit which the learned counsel for the review applicant wants to place on record was well within his knowledge and he could have placed the same on record. Even if an affidavit of Baljit Singh (respondent No.4) records that he is not a defaulter and not in occupation of any Government land and in case he still is, the review applicant has his remedy in accordance with law.

11. For the present, no material has been placed on record to show that respondent No.4 is in unauthorized occupation of any Government land. The case relates to disputed questions of facts which are not to be adjudicated upon in the writ petition; besides, the review applicant has not shown that the facts as mentioned herein were not within his knowledge despite exercise of due diligence or that the documents now produced or sought to be produced by him were not within his knowledge at the time when the order dated 28.07.2009 – the review of which is sought, was passed. No mistake or error apparent on the face of the record has been shown; besides, there is no sufficient reason that has been mentioned to review the order dismissing the writ petition of the review applicant.

12. Therefore, there is no merit in the review application and the same is accordingly dismissed.

13. Keeping in view the fact that the review application has been dismissed, the question of delay in filing the review application is only academic and the same is also dismissed.

Applications dismissed.

********