Delhi District Court
Jai Singh vs Gaon Sabha on 7 June, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. M. P. SINGH, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE03,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
RCA No.49/16
New RCA No.661045/2016
In the matter of:
1. Jai Singh, S/o Sh. Kishan
r/o Village Jonapur
Teh. Mehrauli, New Delhi110047
2. Ramesh Chand, S/o Sh. Chetan
r/o Village Jonapur
Teh. Mehrauli, New Delhi110047 ..... Appellants
Versus
1. Gaon Sabha
Village Jonapur
Through Pradhan/Director of Panchayat / Secretary
Government of N.C.T. of Delhi.
2. Late Jage Ram, s/o Sh. Khubbi Ram (Deceased; through following LRs)
(a) Babu Ram, s/o late Jage Ram
(b) Kalu Ram, s/o late Jage Ram
(c) Mahavir Singh, s/o late Jage Ram
(d) Bijender, s/o late Jage Ram
(e) Braham Prakash, s/o late Jage Ram
(f) Smt. Roopwati, daughter of deceased Jage Ram
(g) Smt. Bijan, daughter of late Sh. Jage Ram
All residents of Village & P. O. Jonaput
Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi110047
3. Lachhi, s/o Sh. Harnam
4. Sh. Prakash, s/o Sh. Chander Pal
5. Sh. Sita Ram, s/o Sh. Babu Ram
RCA No. 49/16
New RCA No. 661045/16 Page No. 1 of 10
6. Late Khazan, s/o Sh. Ram Pershad (Deceased; through following LRs)
(a) Smt. Bhateri, wife of late Khazan
(b) Smt. Sunita @ Santosh, daughter of late Khazan
Both residents of Village Jonapur,
Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi110047.
7. Sh. Satbir, s/o of Sh. Tej Ram
8. Late Satya Pal (Deceased; through following LRs)
(a) Smt. Satyawati (wife)
(b) Sh. Manoj (minor son)
(c) Ms. Anita (daughter)
(d) Ms. Meena (daughter)
(e) Ms. Neha (minor daughter)
All residents of Village Jonapur,
Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi110047.
9. Sh. Mahabir, s/o Sh. Jage Ram
10. Sh. Vijender Singh, s/o Sh. Jage Ram
11. Sh. Kartar Singh s/o Sh. Bodan
12. Sh. Chetan, s/o Sh. Chhitar Mal
13. Sh. Ran Lal, s/o Sh. Khubbi Ram
14. Sh. Heto, s/o Sh. Nibal (Deceased; through following LRs)
(a) Shri Ram, s/o late Heto
(b) Patram, s/o late Heto
(c) Hariram, s/o late Heto
(d) Sukhpal, s/o late Heto
(e) Smt. Rama, d/o late Heto
(f) Smt. Gola, d/o late Heto
All r/o Village Jonapur, Tehsil
Mehrauli, New Delhi110047
15. Smt. Vidhya, w/o late Sh. Parkash
16. Union of India
Through its Secretary
Government of India, New Delhi
RCA No. 49/16
New RCA No. 661045/16 Page No. 2 of 10
17. Shri Rattan Lal (Deceased; through following LR)
Smt. Resham w/o Govind Ram
R/o Village & P.O. Jonapur
Tehsil Mehrauli, Delhi. ... Respondents
Appeal filed on - 19.12.2011
Judgment pronounced on - 07.06.2018
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiffs Jai Singh and Ramesh Chand are in the appeal before this Court against judgment and decree dt. 07.12.2011 whereby and whereunder their suit stood dismissed.
2. Facts as set out in the plaint are as follows: Plaintiffs Jai Singh son of Kishan, Ramesh Chand son of Chetan and Rattan Lal son of Kishan constituted a Hindu Joint Family. They were making out their living as agriculture labourers. They had been cultivating lands as tenants of landholders of village Jonapur, Mehrauli, Delhi. In the process of implementation of 20 point programme in 1980, defendant no.1 Gaon Sabha allotted land on patta to non agriculturists of village Jonapur, Mehrauli. Defendant no.1 Gaon Sabha agreed to lease out on patta land bearing khasra No.27/22/1 on annual rent of Rs. 25/ in plaintiffs' favour. Plaintiffs cultivated the land bearing khasra no. 27/22/1 measuring 3 bigha 5 biswas from the date it was allotted to them. Plaintiffs allege that Gaon Sabha, Jonapur through revenue staff managed to keep the entry in the column of cultivation of Khasra Girdawari as vacant except for year 198182 wherein name of Rattan Lal s/o Sh. Kishan Lal caste Bairagi has been entered in the remarks column in Khasra Girdawari. Plaintiffs' grievance was that Gaon Sabha, Jonapur through its Pradhan threatened to evict them from the suit land by force and then distribute the same to other persons. Plaintiffs averred that defendant no.1 Gaon Sabha had no right to evict them RCA No. 49/16 New RCA No. 661045/16 Page No. 3 of 10 except in accordance with law. On these averments, they sought to permanently injunct the defendants from evicting them from land bearing khasra no. 27/22/1 measuring 3 bigha 5 biswa otherwise than in accordance with law.
3. Defendant no.1 Gaon Sabha, Jonapur through its Pradhan Sh. Devia filed written statement. Defendant no.1 took the stand that the land in dispute was allotted to weaker sections of the society under 20 point programme of Delhi Administration by way of plots (residential) and the said allottess to whom land was given by Gaon Sabha were necessary parties. It further stated that the land allotted to various beneficiaries were done by resolution of Gaon Sabha and patta certificates were distributed to them along with land. Defendant no.1 denied that land of khasra No. 27/22/1 was leased out on patta to the plaintiffs or that same was allotted to them. It further denied that plaintiffs had been regularly cultivating the said land. It submitted that if there was no entry in the remarks column of the revenue records as averred by the plaintiffs, then the same must be in collusion with halqa patwari and girdawar and without notice to Gaon Sabha. It is submitted that land in question already stood allotted to various persons. Denying the allegations of threats, defendant no. 1 sought dismissal of the suit.
4. Defendants no. 2 to 5, defendant no. 7 to 13, defendant no. 15 and legal heirs of defendants no. 6 and 14 filed their separate written statement. They state that the land in question had been distributed in the shape of plots 2 ½ biswa each by Gaon Sabha, Jonapur to them in 1987 and since then they have been occupying their respective plots to plaintiffs' knowledge. According to them, defendants no. 2 to 15 received plots of 2 ½ biswa each from the Gaon Sabha and their names were also mutated in the khatoni by mutation on RCA No. 49/16 New RCA No. 661045/16 Page No. 4 of 10 26.02.1987. They state that after mutation they are in actual possession of the their respective plots. They submit that plaintiffs are not and were not in possession of the land in question even on the date of filing of the suit. They state that there is no concept of 'tenant' under Delhi Land Reforms Act. According to them, Delhi Land Reforms Act recognizes only Bhumidar, Asami and Gaon Sabha. They state that plaintiffs have not disclosed in the entire plaint as to under which landholders they were in possession. As regards revenue entry for year 198182, they state that plaintiffs procured / mangaged the same with a view to grab the land. Denying plaintiffs' all other assertions, they sought dismissal of the suit.
5. Ld. Trial Court in its judgment considered the following issues:
1. Whether the defendant has allotted the suit land by way of lease in favour of the plaintiff?
2. Whether the lease has been terminated?
3. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the land in question? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction claimed? OPP
5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for nonjoinder of allottees and Union of India is necessary party? OPP
6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
7. As to whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable for want of the notice U/s 80 CPC? OPP
8. Relief.
6. In the trial, plaintiffs examined three witnesses, namely, PW1 Sh. Ramesh Chand son of Chetan, PW2 Sh. Roop Chand and PW3 Sh. Bali Mukand. Defendants examined four witnesses, who are as follows: D1W1 Sh. Amit Yadav, D1W2 Sh. S. S. Rao, D215/W1 Sh. Kartar Singh and D215/DW2 RCA No. 49/16 New RCA No. 661045/16 Page No. 5 of 10 Sh. Deviya in support of their case.
7. Arguments heard. Record perused.
8. Ld. Trial Court was of the view that the plaintiffs were not able to establish that the land in question had been allotted to them on patta. Ld. Trial Court was also of the view that the plaintiffs were not able to establish their possession insasmuch as under the law possession of vacant land vests with the owner. Thus, on issues No. 1, 2, 3 & 4, Ld. Trial Court returned a finding against the plaintiffs. On rest of the issues, Ld. Trial Court held in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
9. To begin with, there was a cloud over plaintiffs' right, title or interest to the suit land. This cloud was raised in the written statement. That apart, it was specifically asserted that D2 to D15 were in possession of the suit land. Not only that, proceedings under section 86A, Delhi Land Reforms Act were stated to be sub judice against the plaintiffs on the allegations that they were trespassers. Given this, it is doubtful as to how a simplicitor suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from dispossesing the plaintiffs could have been maintainable in the backdrop of the decision of the Apex Court in Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (2008) 4 SCC 594.
10. PW1 Ramesh Chand in his evidence deposed that what was allotted to the plaintiffs was land in Khasra No. 27/22/2 and that Gaon Sabha later on changed the Khasra number to 27/22/1. No such assertion was made in the plaint. It is for the first time in the evidence that the plaintiffs are taking the plea that what was in fact allotted was Khasra No. 27/22/2 and which was later changed to Khasra No. 27/22/1. It is pertinent to mention that in the plaint there was no reference whatsoever anywhere to Khasra No. 27/22/2. That apart, RCA No. 49/16 New RCA No. 661045/16 Page No. 6 of 10 there is no material whatsoever on record to substantiate this piece of oral evidence of PW1 Ramesh Chand that Gaon Sabha changed the Khasra number from 27/22/2 to 27/22/1. Further, the plaintiffs in support of their case rely on khasra girdawari of the year 19811982 (Ex.PW1/A). As per PW1 Ramesh Chand, the entry visavis the allotments in favour of the plaintiffs was done in the khasra girdawari of year 19811982. However, this document Ex.PW1/A records the name of only one of the plaintiffs namely Rattan Lal, son of Kishan Ram. There is no appeal before this Court on behalf of Rattan Lal, son of Kishan Ram. Apart from this solitary revenue entry in Ex.PW1/A, there is no other revenue entry whatsoever in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land. The plaintiffs have been unable to establish their allegations that the Gaon Sabha through the revenue staff managed the revenue entries of the subsequent years. It is pertinent to mention that PW1 Ramesh in his evidence does not depose that Gaon Sabha through the revenue staff managed the revenue entries of the subsequent years and that for this reason their names do not find mention in the revenue records of the subsequent years. Further, Ld. Trial Court was correct in its observations on the basis of judgment in Sir Bhimeshwara Swami Varu Temple Vs. Pedapudi Krishna Murthi and Ors., AIR 1973 SC 1299 that a stray entry in the document Ex.PW1/A in favour of late Rattan Lal, son of Kishan Ram for year 19811982, without anything more, would not be of much relevance. PW1 Ramesh Chand in his cross examination concedes that he has no other evidence of allotment in plaintiffs' favour apart from document Ex.PW1/A.
11. Plaintiffs next relied on the resolution / record of minutes book dated 11.07.1978 (Ex.DW2/W21/P1) of Gaon Sabha, Jonapur, in support of thier case. This document surfaced for the first time on 20.02.2002 in the cross RCA No. 49/16 New RCA No. 661045/16 Page No. 7 of 10 examination of D1W2 S.S. Rao, Panchayat Secretary from the office of BDO. However, this document too does not advance plaintiffs' case. This document merely notes that the Goan Sabha, Jonapur had decided to allot land by charging Rs.25/ per acre from the allottees. However, this document notes name of only one plaintiff, namely Ramesh, son of Chetan. That apart, this document does not state as to which land or which khasra number was allotted to Ramesh, son of Chetan. Further, this document merely notes that land was proposed to be allotted to several allottees including Ramesh, son of Chetan. However, there is no other material to show that pursuant to this resolution, Ramesh, son of Chetan was in fact allotted land in the village Jonapur and that too land of Khasra No. 27/22/1 (as stated in the plaint) and / or land of khasra no. 27/22/2 (as deposed by PW1 Ramesh Chand, son of Chetan in his cross examination). It is the view of this Court that this document Ex.DW2/W21/P1 too does not comes out as proof of plaintiffs' case.
12. Plaintiffs next relied upon a receipt MarkA bearing No. 62 dt. 30.09.1980. This is a receipt of Rs. 25/ in the name of Ramesh, son of Chetan and Jai Singh, son of Kishan. However, this document too does not come out as proof of plaintiffs' case. PW2 Roop Chand (previous Pradhan of the village) in his evidence stated that when he was Pradhan in 1980, Gaon Sabha had allotted land and one of the allottees was Ramesh, son of Chetan. However, PW 2 Roop Chand could not remember the khasra number that was allotted. In his evidence, he further deposed that certain fee was charged from the allottees and that he (PW2 Roop Chand) being the Pradhan used to sign the receipts. However, PW2 Roop Chand in his evidence, nowhere states that the receipt MarkA was issued under his signatures. That apart, the original of this document was not shown or produced before the Court. Further, the summoned RCA No. 49/16 New RCA No. 661045/16 Page No. 8 of 10 witness (D1W2 S. S. Rao) in his evidence stated that as per the records there is no receipt bearing No. 62 dt 30.09.1980 in the name of plaintiffs. As per the evidence of the summoned witness (D1W2 S. S. Rao) receipt No. 62 in the official records in fact existed in favour of one Kripal, son of Fateh and that the same was dated 10.09.1981. It is pertinent to mention here that plaintiffs too had summoned an official witness (PW3 Bal Mukund, Panchayat Secretary) in their endeavour to prove the receipt MarkA. However, PW3 in his evidence stated that as per the official record, receipt no. 62 was in fact issued in the name of Kripal, son of Fateh and that the same was dt.10.09.1981. Relevant would it be to note that PW3 was only partly examinedinchief; his remaining examinationinchief was deferred to enable him to bring the complete record but he did not again turn up in the witness box. Thus, this Court is of the view that the receipt MarkA also does not adavnce plaintiffs' case.
13. The oral evidence of PW2 Roop Chand, without any cogent material, to support his claim would not suffice to establish the case of the plaintiffs. Not only this, PW2 Roop Chand is not able to tell as to which land was allotted to the plaintiffs or as to on what date the same are allotted or as to how and pursuant to what decision of Gaon Sabha the same were allotted.
14. There are further doubts in the plaintiffs' case. The summoned official witness (D1W1 Amit Yadav, Halka Patwari) in his evidence deposed that as per the revenue records, out of khasra no. 27/22/1, land measuring 2 bigah 10 biswa had already been allotted to defendants no. 2 to 15 and some other persons (total 20 persons) and also mutated in their names. In this regard, he exhibited the concerned revenue record as Ex.D1W1/1. Given this, it was doubtful as to how the plaintiffs sued for mere injunction. Further, PW1 Ramesh Chand in RCA No. 49/16 New RCA No. 661045/16 Page No. 9 of 10 his evidence deposed that he has been cultivating the land. However, D2 15/W1 Kartar Singh in his evidence stated that the land is lying vacant and that no cultivation has been done for several years prior to 1987. Ld. Trial Court was correct in observing that possession of vacant land would go with the title.
15. I find no merit in this appeal. The appeal stands dismissed. Trial Court record be sent back with a copy of this judgment. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN MURARI Digitally signed
by MURARI
COURT ON 07.06.2018 PRASAD PRASAD SINGH
Date: 2018.06.07
SINGH 15:53:55 +0530
(M. P. SINGH)
ADJ03 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS
DELHI
RCA No. 49/16
New RCA No. 661045/16 Page No. 10 of 10