ORDER

Sh. Mukul Joshi, I.A.S., Financial Commissioner. – This is a revision petition against the order of the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar dated 22.7.2002 vide which he dismissed an appeal filed by the revision petitioner against the order of the Land Acquisition Collector dated 4.6.1997. Vide this order the Land Acquisition Collector, Improvement Trust Ludhiana had sanctioned the mutation of the land in dispute in favour of the Improvement Trust Ludhiana on the basis of the Land Acquisition Award dated 4.8.1981, vide which this land alongwith other land in the same village had been acquired by the Improvement Trust Ludhiana. The details of the case are contained in the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner and need not be gone into again.

2. On behalf of the petitioner the main grounds taken are that although the land in village Sunet, tehsil and district Ludhiana, including land belonging to the petitioner, had been acquired by the Improvement Trust Ludhiana by way of land acquisition proceedings, the petitioner had filed a civil suit against the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana as well as the Land Acquisition Collector, Improvement Trust, Ludhiana for permanent injunction restraining them from taking possession of the land and house owned by the petitioner. This suit was contested by the respondent Improvement Trust Ludhiana and decided in favour of the petitioner vide order of the Sub Judge-Ist Class, Ludhiana dated 5.1.1984. This decree had not been challenged in appeal, and therefore was final between the parties, and in view of this the sanctioning of mutation was illegal, and both the orders of the Collector as well as the Commissioner rejecting the appeal required to be set aside.

3. On behalf of the respondent Improvement Trust it was argued that the petitioner had not come to this court with clean hands. The petitioner and the others had filed a Civil Writ Petition against the acquisition proceedings in the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had been dismissed vide orders of Hon’ble Court dated 22.5.1996, and the SLP filed against this in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was also dismissed vide orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 25.10.1996, and a subsequent application filed by the petitioner in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Ludhiana under order 39 rule 1&2 read with section 151 CPC for restraining the present respondent from dispossessing the petitioner from suit land was also dismissed vide order of the Court dated 20.3.2002. Subsequently a petition filed by the present petitioner with the Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government for issuance of directions to the respondent for not interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner of the land in dispute was also dismissed by the Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government, after due hearing.

3. In light of all the above it is clear that the petitioner had no ground to challenge the mutation, and had actually concealed subsequent legal developments in order to falsely strengthen his case.

4. I have heard the counsels and gone through the case. The petitioner’s claims are based primarily on the order of the Sub Judge, Ludhiana dated 5.1.1984 in which there is an injunction against the respondent Improvement   Trust Ludhiana from dispossessing the petitioner from the land in dispute. A perusal of the order proceedings of the case however shows that the court had held defendant (present respondent) from dispossessing the plaintiff from the property in dispute except in due course of law. While an injunction had been granted, it is quite clear that the petitioner could be dispossessed by adopting the proper legal course of action. As regards the petitioner’s rights over this land, this issue has been clearly settled by the acquisition proceedings, the civil writ petition filed in the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and the SLP filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, and it is clear that the petitioner has no longer any rights over the land. A Civil petition for restraining the respondent from dispossessing the petitioner, filed by the petitioner in the court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ludhiana, has also been dismissed vide order of the court dated 20.3.2002. In view of this there is nothing restraining the respondent from dispossessing the petitioner in accordance with the law. Certainly there are no grounds for denying the mutation of the land in favour of the respondent in accordance with the notification of 1981 issued under the Land Acquisition Act.

5. In view of the above I find no merits in the revision petition, which is dismissed, and the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner are upheld.

Petition dismissed.

********