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 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)