Punjab-Haryana High Court
Beeru And Others vs Gram Panchayat Pawta on 11 May, 2012
Author: L.N.Mittal
Bench: L.N.Mittal
RSA No. 769 of 2011 (O&M)
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 769 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 11.05.2012
Beeru and others ...Appellants
Versus
Gram Panchayat Pawta, through its Sarpanch. ..Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL, JUDGE.
Present : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sood, Advocate,
for the appellants.
****
L.N.MITTAL J.(Oral)
CM No. 2129-C of 2011 For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, the application is allowed and delay of one day in filing the appeal is condoned.
CM No. 2130-C of 2011 For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, the application is allowed and delay of 92 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
RSA No. 769 of 2011
The plaintiffs including legal representatives of some of the deceased plaintiffs having partly failed in both the Courts below have filed this second appeal.
The plaintiffs/appellants alleged that the suit land has been in possession of the plaintiffs and their predecessors as tenants at Will for more than 70-80 years on payment of Chakota (rent) of ` 2/- per year. Defendant No.1-Gram Panchayat, recorded as owner of the suit RSA No. 769 of 2011 (O&M) [2] land, had assured never to eject the plaintiffs from the suit land. The rent was also never increased. The plaintiffs thus alleged that they acquired occupancy rights in the suit land and have, therefore, become owners thereof. However, defendant No.1 has leased out the suit land to defendant No.2 for two years on payment of ` 9000/- vide receipt dated 08.05.2003, but the plaintiffs are in actual possession of the suit land. The plaintiffs accordingly sought declaration that they are owners in possession of the suit land and lease by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No.2 is illegal and unlawful and has no effect on the rights of the plaintiffs. Permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land in any manner except in due course of law was also prayed for.
Both the defendants filed separate but similar written statements. They controverted the averments of the plaintiffs. It was denied that plaintiffs have acquired occupancy rights in the suit land or have become owners thereof. Lease by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 was defended as legal and valid.
Learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 09.12.2009 partly decreed the plaintiffs' suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land except in due course of law, holding that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land as 'Gair Marusi' tenants/tenants at Will. Suit regarding remaining relief was dismissed. The plaintiffs as well as defendant No.1 filed first appeals against the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 30.04.2010 dismissed both the appeals. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed this second appeal.
RSA No. 769 of 2011 (O&M)[3]
I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file.
As far as possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land is concerned, the same has been found established by both the Courts below. Even Sewak Ram DW2, Member Panchayat, admitted the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land since long. This fact is also evident from the revenue record.
The main controversy is regarding acquiring of occupancy rights and consequential ownership by the plaintiffs. Both the Courts below have negatived this claim of the plaintiffs. In the plaint itself, the plaintiffs alleged that they are tenants at Will (non-occupancy tenants). Consequently, they could not acquire occupancy rights in the suit land. Moreover, jamabandis since 1960-61 onwards produced in evidence and as shown by counsel for the appellants reveal that plaintiffs and their predecessors were in possession of the suit land as first or superior Gair Marusi tenants whereas the actual cultivation of the suit land was by Net Ram son of Hiraman as second or inferior or subordinate Gair Marusi tenant or as sub-tenant. Rent of ` 2/- per annum was payable by tenants but the second or subordinate tenant or sub-tenant was paying half batai. Occupancy rights are acquired by the actual tiller of the land. As per entries in jamabandi for more than forty years before filing of the suit, the plaintiffs or their predecessors were not recorded to be actual tillers of the suit land or in actual cultivation of the suit land. On the contrary, actual physical cultivating possession over the suit land was recorded to be of Net Ram son of Hiraman who was not predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs. Moreover, said Net Ram was paying half batai and therefore, it cannot be said that plaintiffs have acquired occupancy rights in the suit land RSA No. 769 of 2011 (O&M) [4] and have become owners thereof.
Counsel for the appellants contended that Net Ram son of Hiraman was noneelse but Net Ram son of Har Narain who was among the first tenants. This contention cannot be accepted. There is no evidence worth the name to substantiate this contention. Secondly, if it had been so, different parentage of Net Ram would not have been recorded in jamabandis for more than 40 years for the same person. The persons who have been recorded as first tenants include Net Ram son of Har Narain whereas name of second or subordinate tenant is recorded as Net Ram or Nate Ram son of Hirayan or Hiraman. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said subordinate tenant is the same person who is recorded among the first tenants.
In view of the aforesaid, it becomes manifest that the plaintiffs have failed to establish that they acquired occupancy rights over the suit land and consequently became owners thereof. Concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below to negative the said claim of the plaintiffs is fully justified by the evidence on record. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal or based on misreading or mis-appreciation of evidence. The said finding is rather the only reasonable finding that can be arrived at on appreciation of evidence. The said finding, therefore, does not call for interference. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in this second appeal. There is no merit in the appeal which is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
11.05.2012 (L.N.MITTAL) 'ravinder' JUDGE