दिल्ली के बड़े नेताओं के फोन बेकार, पप्पी-पाराशर ने मिलकर चटकाया अंतर्राष्ट्रीय क्रिकेटर का विकेट

0
434

फरीदाबाद: जरूरी नहीं कि रुलाने वाला आजीवन आपको रुला सके। अगर वो जानबूझकर आपको रुला रहा है तो वक्त कभी न कभी करवट जरूर बदलेगा और आप हँसेंगे, वो रोयेगा। फरीदाबाद में रहने वाले प्रेमकृष्ण आर्य उर्फ़ पप्पी अप्रैल 2017 में उस समय फूट-फूट कर रोये थे जब उनके सामने उनके पिता की समाधि स्थल पर जेसीबी चली थी और पप्पी के सामने ही उनके पिता जी की समाधि को ढहा दिया गया। मौके पर बड़े पुलिस अधिकारी के साथ साथ सैकड़ों पुलिसकर्मी थे इसलिए पप्पी उस समय कोई आवाज नहीं उठा सके। सिर्फ अपनी बर्बादी का तमाशा देखते रहे और पिता की समाधि टूटते हुए देखते रहे।

उस समय पप्पी के पिता की समाधि और उनका फ़ार्म हाउस तुड़वाने का आरोप पूर्व अंतर्राष्ट्रीय क्रिकेटर अंजुम चोपड़ा पर लगा था। पप्पी ने पूर्व महिला क्रिकेटर पर बड़ा आरोप लगाते हुए कहा था कि पूर्व क्रिकेटर अंजुम चोपड़ा कुछ बड़े राजनेताओं के साथ मिलकर उनका फ़ार्म हाउस हड़पना चाहती हैं। पप्पी ने कहा था कि अंजुम चोपड़ा ने दिल्ली के एक बड़े नेता से सांठगांठ और पुलिस से मिलकर उनका फ़ार्म तुड़वा दिया। उन्होंने कहा कि था कोर्ट के स्टे के बावजूद उनका फ़ार्म हाउस तोडा गया | उन्हें किसी प्रकार का नोटिस भी जारी नहीं किया गया था. पप्पी ने कहा था पुलिस ने कोर्ट का स्टे आर्डर भी देखना उचित नहीं समझा और भारी पुलिस बल के साथ प्राइवेट जीसीबी मशीन ले जाकर उनका फ़ार्म हाउस पूरी तरह तुड़वा दिया गया।

सूत्रों की मानें तो सच में दिल्ली से फोन आने पर पप्पी के पिता की समाधि और फ़ार्म हाउस को ढहाया गया था। पप्पी भाजपा नेता थे और केंद्र और राज्य में भाजपा की सरकार थी लेकिन पप्पी का किसी ने भी साथ नहीं दिया था। सभी नेताओं ने दिल्ली से फोन आने के बाद मुँह मोड़ लिया था। उस समय पप्पी ने कहा था कि अब मुझे भगवन और कोर्ट पर भरोषा है। उसके बाद पूर्व क्रिकेटर अंजुम चोपड़ा के पिता कृष्णबल चोपड़ा और पप्पी के केस कोर्ट में चलने लगे। पूर्व क्रिकेटर के पिता ने पप्पी पर कोर्ट का आदेश न मानने और फ़ार्म हाउस पर कब्ज़ा करने का मामला भी दर्ज करवा दिया। पिछले साल पप्पी ने इस मामले को फरीदाबाद के जाने मानें वकील एल एन पाराशर के पास ले गए और पाराशर ने पप्पी के मामले की पैरवी की और कल अदालत में पप्पी को विजय मिली और जज ने पप्पी के पक्ष में फैसला सुनाया। फैसले के बाद पप्पी ने वकील पराशर का मुँह मीठा करवाया और उन्हें थैंक्स कहा।लगभग 16 पेज का आर्डर है जिसमे पप्पी के पक्ष में बहुत कुछ लिखा गया है जिसकी चुनौती हाईकोर्ट या सुप्रीम कोर्ट में देने के बाद भी शायद चोपड़ा को कामयाबी न मिले।

आपको बता दें कि 2011 में पप्पी के पिताजी ने अनंगपुर में कृषि योग्य पंद्रह सौ गज जमीन ली थी। ये जमीन सड़क से कई फ़ीट गहरी थी इसलिए पप्पी ने इसमें कई लाख रूपये लगा मिट्टी से सड़क के बराबर समतल करवाया और उसके बाद यहाँ बाउंड्री बनवाई और पिताजी के निधन के बाद उस जमीन में अपने पिता की समाधि भी बनवाई। जब पप्पी फ़ार्म हाउस की बाउंड्री करवा रहे थे तब पूर्व क्रिकेटर के पिता कृष्ण बल चोपड़ा मौके पर मौजूद थे उन्होंने अपनी जमीन के निशान लगवाये थे वहां पिलर खड़े किये थे लेकिन कुछ महीने बाद पूर्व क्रिकेटर अंजुम चोपड़ा ने उस फार्म हाउस को तुड़वा दिया और पप्पी के पिता की समाधि भी तुड़वा दी। उस समय पप्पी ने कहा था कि क्रिकेटर अंजुम चोपड़ा उनका फ़ार्म हाउस हड़पना चाहती है |

पहले भी उसने फ़ार्म हाउस हड़पने के प्रयास किये थे लेकिन उसके मंसूबों पर पानी फिर गया था जिसके बाद पूर्व क्रिकेटर ने किसी बड़े नेता से मिलीभगत कर फरीदाबाद पुलिस को साथ लेकर उस फार्म हॉउस को तुड़वा दिया था। इसके बाद पप्पी ने कोर्ट का सहारा लिया और अब पूर्व क्रिकेटर का विकेट चटक गया। पप्पी ने कहा कि इस दुनिया में देर है अंधेर नहीं है। पप्पी ने कहा कि कोर्ट ने ये फैसला कल ही किया था लेकिन पुलवामा के शहीदों के कारण इस फैसले के बारे में मैंने मीडिया को नहीं बताया था क्यू कि कल के उस हमले के बाद मैं गमगीन था।

 

HRFB02-000162-2016 CP-4-2016
Krishan Bal Chopra & Anr. Vs. Prem Krishan Arya
1
IN THE COURT OF SONIA, CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),
FARIDABAD
(UID NO. HR0447)
***
Civil Suit No. 55
Date of Instt.: 13.01.2016/29.09.2017
CIS No. : CP-4-2016
Date of Decision: 03.07.2018
1. Sh. Krishan Bal Chopra S/o Late Sh. Suraj Bal Chopra
2. Mrs. Poonam Chopra W/o Sh. Krishan Bal Chopra
Both residents of Chopra Farms, Village Anangpur, Surajkund
Badkhal Road, Tehsil & District Faridabad.
….Plaintiffs
VERSUS
Prem Krishan Arya (Pappi), S/o Late Jagdish S/o Pehlad, R/o Villa no.A-41,
Omaxe Green Valley, Near Green Field Colony, Faridabad.
……Defendant.
PETITION U/O 39 RULE 2A READ WITH SECTION 151 CPC
Present: Sh. Manoj Kumar Gupta, Advocate for petitioners
Sh. L.N.Parashar, Advocate for respondent
JUDGMENT:
Petitioner has filed present petition under Section 39 Rule 2A
read with Section 151 CPC.
2. Briefly, it is case of the petitioner that the petitioners have been
the owners in possession of the land measuring 30 bighas 13 biswa pukhta
situated in revenue estate of Village Anangpur, Tehsil & District Faridabad
which were purchased by registered sale deeds as follow:-
AREA DATE VASIKA NO. IN FAVOUR OF
(i) 18 Bighas 1.9.1980 6354 Plaintiff no.1
(ii) 8 Bighas 13 Biswa1.9.1980 6355 Plaintiff no.2
(iii) 4 Bighas 12.8.1987 6174 Plaintiff no.1
Sonia,
CJJD, Faridabad,14.02.2019
UID No.HR-0447
HRFB02-000162-2016 CP-4-2016
Krishan Bal Chopra & Anr. Vs. Prem Krishan Arya
2
After the sale deeds, mutations have also been sanctioned in
favour of petitioners and the petitioners have sold an area of 25 Bighas and
thus leaving an area of 67 Bighas (Kaccha) on the spot. The partition of Gair
Mumkin Pahar of Village Anangpur, where the suit property is situated
started in Civil Court under the title of R.C.Sood Vs. R.Kant & Ors.. The
appeal of the said suit was allowed and the Ld. ADJ, Faridabad passed an
order of preparation of preliminary decree. The co-sharers of the land filed a
petition before the then Civil Judge, Faridabad for preparation of the final
decree and in that process, the then DRO was appointed as Local
Commissioner to suggest mode of partition and the applicant was proposed
to be allotted Ladi no.370 comprising Khasra no.1339/27, 1330/72 and 26.
The petitioners have raised construction in the form of house over the part of
above said land and also constructed boundary walls over some portion of
covering the rest of the portion with angle iron with barbed wire. Alongwith
suit of permanent injunction, the petitioners also moved an application under
Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and the following order was passed by the
court on 13.10.2015 “Power of attorney on behalf of defendant no.1 filed
and a date is requested for filing written statement and reply to application
under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of Code of Civil Procedure on his behalf.
Heard. Allowed. Now to come upon 4.11.2015 for filing written statement
and reply to application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of Code of Civil
Procedure. Till then parties are directed to maintain status quo qua
construction over the suit property”.
Sonia,
CJJD, Faridabad,14.02.2019
UID No.HR-0447
HRFB02-000162-2016 CP-4-2016
Krishan Bal Chopra & Anr. Vs. Prem Krishan Arya
3
3. However, despite the passing of status quo order, the respondent
started interference in the enjoyment and peaceful possession of the
petitioners over the suit property and continued raising construction over the
suit property as well as the other property. The status qua order was passed
in the presence of respondent counsel and he was well aware of the order.
On 31.10.2015, the matter was adjourned for filing written statement when
the defendant was represented through his counsel Sh. V.P.Chaprana and
Mrs. Saroj Popli. The defendant relied upon the sale deed No.6040 alleged
to be executed by Ambika Nanu and Prema Nanu through their power of
attorney Manoj Kumar in favour of Jagdish S/o Pehlad in respect of Khasra
no.1338. The court was pleased to modify the order dated 31.10.2015 which
is as follows:-
“It is, therefore order that parties shall maintain status
quo qua construction over the suit property i.e. land
which is subject matter of the sale deed bearing no.6354
dated 1.9.1980 and sale deed no.6355 dated 11.9.1980
and sale deed bearing no.6174 dated 12.8.1987”.
4. The defendant has misled the court while getting the order dated
4.11.2015. On inquiry, it came to the knowledge of applicant that Khasra no.
1338 is not in existence and has not been shown in the site plan prepared by
Sh. Manjeet Singh Maan, Local Commissioner. Thus, the property of
defendants is not in existence whereas under guise of Khasra no.1338, the
respondents have encroached and trespassed over the land of petitioners and
raised construction. The respondent has no regard for the orders of the court
and raised construction in the form of boundary walls, rooms, cattle shed etc.
over part of land of applicant and thus the respondent has intentionally and
Sonia,
CJJD, Faridabad,14.02.2019
UID No.HR-0447
HRFB02-000162-2016 CP-4-2016
Krishan Bal Chopra & Anr. Vs. Prem Krishan Arya
4
willfully violated the status quo orders passed by the court on 31.10.2015. It
is further submitted that on 02.01.2015, when the respondent was raising
construction, petitioner no.1 alongwith his son and photographer Munavvar
Ali were taking photographs on the spot from their own premises. The
respondent alongwith other anti social elements attacked them. The
respondent was having iron rod in his hand and he hit on the head of
Munavvar Ali and attacked the petitioner and his son with fist and kicks
whereby the matter was reported to the police and petitioner no.1 and
Munavvar Ali were medico-legally examined at B.K.Hospital, Faridabad.
FIR no.544 dated 02.01.2015 was lodged against respondent and others but
the respondent has not stopped raising construction and is still doing the
same in spite of the status quo order. The police is not taking any action
against the respondent under his pressure in spite of several request. Hence,
the present petition.
5. In reply to the petition, respondent has denied the version of
petitioners and has stated that infect in para no.1 of the petition, the applicant
have alleged the word ‘land’ and in para no.2 the same is written as Gair
Mumkin Pahar, hence the petitioner themselves are not informed about
nature of property and they are bent upon to misguide the court. It is
submitted that as per the orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India no one
can construct over the land in question being forest land. It is further
submitted that the order was passed in the absence of respondent and the
same was cancelled/vacated on the next date of hearing as the facts told by
the plaintiffs were wrong and the order of status qua was vacated against the
Sonia,
CJJD, Faridabad,14.02.2019
UID No.HR-0447
HRFB02-000162-2016 CP-4-2016
Krishan Bal Chopra & Anr. Vs. Prem Krishan Arya
5
respondents. The applicants have levelled false allegations against
respondent whereas even the Hon’ble Court scolded the petitioners for
misguiding the court. The respondent has never violated the order passed by
the court. By denying all the contents of the petition, the respondent has
prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed
vide order dated 02.08.2016 passed by the then ld. CJJD, Faridabad
1. Whether the respondent has violated orders dated 31.10.2015 and
4.11.2015 passed by the court? OPA
2. Whether the application is not maintainable in the present form?
OPR
3. Whether the applicant has no cause of action or locus standi to file
the present application?OPR
4. Whether the present application is an abuse of process of law? OPR
5. Whether the present application is bad being suppressio-vari?OPR
6. Relief
7. In order to prove their version, petitioner no.1 tendered his duly
sworn affidavit Ex. PW-1/A wherein he has reiterated the contents of the
petition in letter and spirit. He has also tendered documents Ex. P-1 to Ex. P35.
However, in the cross-examination, he has admitted that the disputed
land is a Gair Mumkin Pahad and the same is also mentioned in the sale
deed Ex. P-1 to P-3 and in the mutations Ex. P-4 to P-6 also. It is admitted
that the said land of Pahad is of Shamlat land. He has self stated that the
partition proceedings has been completed in which he has been given land
measuring 93 Kanal 11 marla in Ladi No.370. It is further admitted that the
partition proceedings are pending in the court of Sh. Vivek Singh, CJJD,
Faridabad and the other co-sharers could have filed objections in the
partition proceedings. It is stated that there is no allotment letter of Ladi
Sonia,
CJJD, Faridabad,14.02.2019
UID No.HR-0447
HRFB02-000162-2016 CP-4-2016
Krishan Bal Chopra & Anr. Vs. Prem Krishan Arya
6
No.370 on the court file as mentioned in the pleadings and has self stated
that the document tendered by him is the Khatoni Taksim which is Ex. P-7
but after seeing this document, he has stated that Ladi No.370 has not been
mentioned in this document. The cross-examination of this witness was
deferred to bring the allotment letter but in the further cross-examination he
did not bring that and stated that the allotment letter has not been issued in
his name till now. It is admitted that he is a party in the partition
proceedings. He has further admitted that the disputed property is a Pahad
and not the agricultural land and he has already raised construction and has
stated that before raising construction, he has not taken any permission from
any other department. It is further admitted that the stay order already passed
by the court was modified on the next date. This witness has stated that the
respondent is having a sale deed of Khasra No.1338 but the said Khasra
number is not in existence and therefore the construction is being raised by
the respondent on the land of petitioners. He moved a complaint to the
police regarding the beatings given by the respondent to the son of petitioner
and to the photographer namely Munavvar Ali. All the other suggestions put
to this witness were denied.
8. PW2 Amit Kumar, Crl. Ahlmad in the court of Sh. Tarun
Singhal, Ld. CJM, Faridabad appeared as a record witness who has brought
the case file titled as State Vs. Prem Parkash in FIR no.544 dated 2.11.2015
of Crl Case no.432/2016. He tendered the certified copy as Ex. PW-2/A.
9. PW-3 Sumer Singh, Halqua Girdawar, Tehsil & District
Faridabad appeared and has stated that he was appointed as Local
Sonia,
CJJD, Faridabad,14.02.2019
UID No.HR-0447
HRFB02-000162-2016 CP-4-2016
Krishan Bal Chopra & Anr. Vs. Prem Krishan Arya
7
Commissioner in case titled as Krishan Pal Vs. Prem Parkash & Ors. He
tendered the certified copies of the notice, memo of presence and his report
as Ex. P-28 and Ex. P-29. In the cross-examination, he has stated that the
disputed land is a Pahad and has self stated that on some portion, leveling
was made. It is admitted that a partition case is pending regarding the suit
property in which he gave his report in the court. It is admitted that the
partition proceedings have not been finalized. He has admitted that no meel
Stone was found on the spot to get the land demarcated. He has admitted
that in the report, he has mentioned the Mustil and Survey Stone but they
were not found on the spot. Upon specific question, he replied that the
measurement/demarcation can be conducted by the wells etc. spotted on the
land. He has further stated that ownership is still to be decided by the court.
The other suggestions put to this witness were denied.
10. PW-4 Rajender Khurana appeared and tendered his affidavit Ex.
PW-4/A whereby he has stated that he tried to save the petitioner Krishan
Pal, Nirvan Chopra and Munavvar Ali and he also received some fist blows.
In the cross-examination, he has stated that at the time of dispute, Krishan
Pal, his son and a photographer were also present. He was not given any
type of injuries. He could not tell as to whose construction was going on and
who was raising the construction. He has self stated that when he went on
the spot alongwith the photographer, the construction was going on. This
witness further denied the suggestions put to him.
11. PW-5 Munavvar Ali appeared and has tendered his affidavit Ex.
PW-5/A whereby he supported the version of petitioners. He tendered the
Sonia,
CJJD, Faridabad,14.02.2019
UID No.HR-0447
HRFB02-000162-2016 CP-4-2016
Krishan Bal Chopra & Anr. Vs. Prem Krishan Arya
8
photographs Ex. P-13 to Ex. P-24. In the cross-examination, he has stated
that his affidavit was got prepared by the counsel of petitioners as per his
instructions. It is admitted that he has no knowledge as to whose
construction was going on and he cannot tell anything about the stay order.
The petitioner was not known to him. He could not tell regarding the
ownership of the disputed land. He has no knowledge regarding the FIR
registered against the petitioner for raising illegal construction. It is admitted
that he had no court orders to take the photographs.
12. PW-6 Nirvan Chopra i.e. the son of petitioners appeared and
supported the version of petitioner by way of his affidavit Ex. PW-6/A. In
the cross-examination, he has stated that he has been working as Building
Constructor in Delhi and is residing in Delhi. It is admitted that he was not a
party in the present case. He has admitted that his father had purchased some
land which is a Pahad and not the agricultural land. He cannot tell anything
about the partition of the land. He has no knowledge about the orders of
Hon’ble Supreme Court.
13. Other than the oral evidence, the petitioners have also tendered
the following documents in support of their case:-
Ex.P1 & P2 Certified copy of sale deed dated 01.09.1980
Ex.P3 Certified copy of sale deed dated 18.08.1987
Ex.P3 Certified copy of sale deed dated3.8.2009
Ex.P4 to P6 Certified copy of Mutations of sale deeds
Ex.P7 Certified copy of Khatoni
Ex.P8 Site Plan
Ex.P9 Certified copy of Application
Ex.P10 Certified Copy of Order dated 31.10.2015
Sonia,
CJJD, Faridabad,14.02.2019
UID No.HR-0447
HRFB02-000162-2016 CP-4-2016
Krishan Bal Chopra & Anr. Vs. Prem Krishan Arya
9
Ex.P11 Certified copy of order dated 04.11.2015
Ex.P12 Copy of FIR
Ex.P13 to 25 Photographs
Ex.P26 & 27 Site Plans
Ex.P28 Certified copy of report
Ex.P29 Site plan
Ex.P30 to 35 Photographs
Ex.P36 Copy of Judgment dated 19.11.2001
Ex.P37 Copy of decree sheet dated 19.11.2001
Ex.PW2/A Certified copy of Challan
14. Thereafter the evidence of the petitioners was closed by his
counsel vide his separately recorded statement dated 14.11.2017.
15. On the other hand, respondent Prem Krishan himself appeared
as RW-1 and has tendered his affidavit Ex. RW-1/A and thereby reiterated
stand taken in the reply in the petition. He has also tendered his documents
Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-3 and mark A to Mark H. In his cross-examination, he has
admitted that the petitioners purchased some land by way of three sale deeds
in Village Anangpur and has self stated that a share was purchased from the
Shamlat Land. He has admitted that a suit for partition is pending in the
court regarding the partition of Gair Mumkin Pahad of Village Anangpur. He
has no knowledge regarding the appointment of Local Commissioner for
final decree. He has self stated that he has purchased land from Khasra
No.1338 in which he has raised construction of boundary wall and a house
but the petitioners are in possession illegally. It is admitted that the counsel
appeared on his behalf in the main civil suit. It is also admitted that the order
dated 31.10.2015 regarding the status quo was modified on 04.11.2015 in
Sonia,
CJJD, Faridabad,14.02.2019
UID No.HR-0447
HRFB02-000162-2016 CP-4-2016
Krishan Bal Chopra & Anr. Vs. Prem Krishan Arya
10
which status quo was ordered regarding the land of petitioners mentioned in
his three sale deeds. He has self stated that the said status quo order was not
applicable on Khasra No.1331 and his land is not a part of the suit property.
It is self stated that he was not called at the time of demarcation by the Local
Commissioner and the local commissioner has wrongly reported because the
partition proceedings have not been finalized. He has denied the occurrence
of assault alleged by the petitioners and has self stated that he was not
present on the spot. In the investigation by the ACP, he has been found
innocent and has also admitted that another ACP re-investigate the case and
found him guilty and the trial is pending in the court of Sh. Alok Anand, Ld.
JMIC, Faridabad. It is admitted that the suit land is a Forest land and no
construction can be raised therein and has self stated that Khasra No.1338 is
not a forest land and therefore construction can be raised therein. He has self
stated that the police has demolished some portion illegally for which appeal
is pending in the Hon’ble High Court. The other suggestions put to this
witness were denied.
16. The following documents were tendered by the respondents:-
Ex.R1 Copy of Sale Deed No.6040 dated 04.08.2011
Ex.R2 Certified Copy of order dated 31.10.2015
Ex.R3 Certified copy of order dated 04.11.2015
Mark A Copy of Khatoni Takseem
Mark A
(Repeated) & B
Copy of RTI Applications
Mark C & D Copy of FIRs
Mark E Copy of Forest Crime Report
Mark F Order of National Green Tribunal dated 03.08.2017
Mark G Certified Copy of Local Commissioner Report
Sonia,
CJJD, Faridabad,14.02.2019
UID No.HR-0447
HRFB02-000162-2016 CP-4-2016
Krishan Bal Chopra & Anr. Vs. Prem Krishan Arya
11
Mark H Copy of Challan in FIR No.544/2015
17. Thereafter, evidence of respondent is closed by court order vide
order dated 28.03.2018.
18. I have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and have gone
through the case file carefully. After considering the pleadings, evidence and
arguments, my issue-wise finding is as under:
ISSUE NO. 1:
Whether the respondent has violated orders dated 31.10.2015 and
4.11.2015 passed by the court? OPA
19. Onus of proving this issue was upon the petitioner. Initiating the
arguments, ld. Petitioner counsel has referred to the order Ex.P-10 to argue
that initially a status quo order was passed regarding construction over the
suit property in the presence of respondent which order was modified on
04.11.2015 (Ex.P11) and the property was specified in that order. The parties
were directed to maintain status quo regarding construction over the
properties mentioned in the sale deeds Ex. P1 to P3 in favour of petitioner
but despite that, the respondent started raising construction over the disputed
property and thereby violated the court order. He has further referred to the
photographs Ex. P-13 to P-25 alongwith the report of Local Commissioner
Ex. P-28 to argue that the LC has specified that the respondent was in
possession over the property of petitioners. It is further argued that the
Khasra No.1338 as alleged by the respondent is not in existence on the spot.
He has further referred to the cross-examination of RW-1 to argue that he
has admitted the construction and knowledge of the status quo order. It is
Sonia,
CJJD, Faridabad,14.02.2019
UID No.HR-0447
HRFB02-000162-2016 CP-4-2016
Krishan Bal Chopra & Anr. Vs. Prem Krishan Arya
12
also argued that onus was upon the respondent to prove that the construction
was being raised in Khasra No.1338. With these contentions, he has prayed
to allow the petition.
20. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has argued
that the partition proceedings are admittedly pending and no specific portion
has been given to the petitioners. It is argued that admittedly, the suit
property is a gair mumkin pahad for which construction has been banned by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He has further referred to the cross-examination
of the Local Commissioner (PW-3) to argue that no mustil stone was found
on the spot and the demarcation was conducted by guess. It is further argued
that the property cannot be identified merely by the photographs and the
witnesses examined by the petitioners have stated that they have no
knowledge as to on whose property the construction was going on. He has
further submitted that there is no actual position of construction produced on
the file and the respondent is also a co-sharer by way of sale deed Ex. R-1
vide which he has purchased a land in Khasra No.1338. He has further
referred to the documents Mark C and Mark D which are the FIRs against
the petitioners themselves under Section 188/34 of IPC for raising
construction over Khasra No.1339 against the orders of Hon’ble Supreme
Court. It is also argued that the petitioners are not clear regarding the
identification of the property as no specific area and portion is mentioned in
the pleadings or in the sale deed of petitioners. With these submissions, he
has prayed to dismiss the petition.
21. I have heard rival submissions of both the parties.
Sonia,
CJJD, Faridabad,14.02.2019
UID No.HR-0447
HRFB02-000162-2016 CP-4-2016
Krishan Bal Chopra & Anr. Vs. Prem Krishan Arya
13
22. The present petition has been filed for proceeding against the
respondent for violating the status quo order passed by the court on
31.10.2015 and 04.11.2015 as Ex. P10 & P11 whereby the parties were
ordered to maintain status quo regarding construction over the suit property
i.e. the property mentioned in the sale deeds of petitioners as Ex. P1 to P3. It
is the version of petitioner that they have been allotted specific land in the
partition proceeding which his total measuring 93 Kanal 11 Marla in Ladi
No.370 upon which the respondent started raising construction. It is settled
law that violation of the order of Court has to be proved upto the hilt by all
cogent and convincing evidence. The party in order to prove violation of the
court, has to bring sufficient evidence, which should be beyond reasonable
shadow of doubt. A person cannot be held guilty for violation of court order
only the basis of preponderance of probability. The onus of proof required
for proving violation of court order is of the level as required in a criminal
prosecution.
23. A perusal of the file would reveal that the petitioners purchased
some land by way of three sale deeds Ex. P-1 to P-3 and it is admitted
position of facts that the disputed land is a gair mumkin pahad of shamlat
deh which fact is also mentioned in the sale deeds. By way of the aforesaid
sale deeds, the petitioner have purchased shares only without any specific
portion of the land and there is no site plan attached with the sale deeds to
identify the specific property purchased by the petitioner. The mutations Ex.
P-4 to P-6 have also been entered regarding the share only in favour of
petitioners and therefore, it has not been proved by way of sale deeds and
Sonia,
CJJD, Faridabad,14.02.2019
UID No.HR-0447
HRFB02-000162-2016 CP-4-2016
Krishan Bal Chopra & Anr. Vs. Prem Krishan Arya
14
mutations that any particular portions was purchased by the petitioners.
Now, as per the pleadings, the petitioners have not brought on record any
allotment letter in their favour to show that the alleged portion i.e. Ladi
No.370 was ever allotted in their names. Although, the petitioner has stated
in the pleadings that Ladi No.370 has been given to them in partition
proceedings but in the cross-examination, he has admitted that the partition
proceedings are still pending in the court and some other co-sharers have
filed objections in the same. Moreover, no final partition order has been
placed on record by the petitioners to show their ownership and possession
over some specific portion. A document i.e. Khatoni Taksim has come on
file but Khatoni Takseem cannot be considered to be the final document of
partition and some further process is to be taken for finalization of the
partition. Hence, when the petitioners have not themselves proved the
specific identification of their property, any violation of the court order
cannot be considered.
24. The respondent has tendered on record the sale deed Ex. R-1
vide which he has purchased some share in Khasra No.1338 and the
petitioners have alleged that no such Khasra number is in existence but this
fact cannot be proved by the petitioners themselves without any evidence of
a Revenue Authority. Moreover, this fact is to be considered in the main suit
which is pending adjudication. The sale deed of respondent is also a
registered document and the same has not been rebutted by the petitioners
then the respondent is also a co-sharer on the area where the property of
petitioners is situated. Now, the specific portion is yet to be delivered to the
Sonia,
CJJD, Faridabad,14.02.2019
UID No.HR-0447
HRFB02-000162-2016 CP-4-2016
Krishan Bal Chopra & Anr. Vs. Prem Krishan Arya
15
parties in the partition proceedings and without adjudication of the same, the
present petition is pre-mature.
25. So far as the point of construction is concerned, the petitioners
have tendered some photographs dated 02.11.2015 and 08.11.2015 in which
some construction is shown to be going on but merely producing the
photographs cannot be a said to be a proof that the construction was being
raised by the respondent. Moreover in the photographs, the identification of
the property is also not proved. The witnesses of petitioner have stated in the
cross-examination that they have no knowledge as to on whose property the
construction was going and who was raising the construction. Ld. Petitioner
counsel pointed towards the LC report Ex. P-28 wherein some portion of
Khasra No.1330/72 is shown to be in possession of the respondent Prem
Krishan but this LC report is only regarding the possession and not for the
construction. It is settled law that the local commissioner can only report
regarding the existing position on the spot and not for the possession. The
LC has nowhere stated that the respondent was raising construction over the
suit property when he went to the spot for the demarcation. Moreover, the
LC has admitted in the cross-examination that he did not find any mustil
stone to get the land demarcated properly. A further perusal of the file
reveals that two FIRs No.263/2017 and 384/2017 have been registered
against the petitioner himself under Section 188 of IPC for raising
construction over Khasra No.1339 in violation of the orders of Hon’ble
Supreme Court. Hence, when the land of petitioners is not specific and
without partition proceedings being finalized, it cannot be said that the land
Sonia,
CJJD, Faridabad,14.02.2019
UID No.HR-0447
HRFB02-000162-2016 CP-4-2016
Krishan Bal Chopra & Anr. Vs. Prem Krishan Arya
16
which was being constructed was owned by the petitioners. Therefore, issue
No.1 is decided against the petitioners.
Issue No.2 to 5
26. Onus to prove these issues was on the respondents. However,
learned counsel for the respondents has not pressed these issues at the time
of arguments. Accordingly, these issues are deemed to be given up by
respondents.
Issue No.6 Relief
27. In view of the aforesaid circumstances on record and as per the
law discussed above, the present petition under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC
fails and the same is dismissed with costs. Memo of costs be prepared
accordingly. File be consigned to record-room, after due compliance.
Announced in the Open court Sonia,
Dated: 14.02.2019 Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.)
Mohit Sardana Faridabad UID:HR0447
Note: Every page of this judgment have been checked and signed by me.
Sonia,
Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.)
Faridabad UID:HR0447

LEAVE A REPLY