Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldeep Singh And Others vs Subeg Singh And Others --Respondents on 11 March, 2014
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
RSA No.3604 of 2009 (O&M) 1
In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
RSA No.3604 of 2009 (O&M)
Decided on 11.3.2014
Kuldeep Singh and others --Appellants
Vs.
Subeg Singh and others --Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Harbhagwan Singh,Sr. Advocate,with Ms.Dilraj Kaur,Advocate, for the appellants Mr.Balsher Singh,Advocate, for Mr.J.S.Thind,Advocate, for the respondents Rakesh Kumar Jain,J: (Oral) The plaintiffs are in appeal.
They filed suit for declaration that they are owners in possession of land measuring 16 kanals 8 marlas, comprised in Square No. 43, Killa No.22 min (1-6),23( 7-11), 24 (7-11) and land measuring 15 kanals 2 marlas, comprised in Square No.43 Killa No.25 (7-11) Square No. 47 Killa No.6/2 (7-11), situated in village Nakora Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa as per jamabandi for the year 1998-99 and the entries in the record of rights in column No.5 are wrong and are liable to be corrected in favour of the plaintiffs and consequential relief of injunction was also sought Ram Rikhi 2014.03.20 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.3604 of 2009 (O&M) 2 restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession over the suit land and also from cutting or removing the standing crop therein.
The case set up by the plaintiffs is that they and proforma defendants are recorded owner of the suit land as per jamabandis for the year 1993-94 and 1998-99 and in due course of law, they got physical possession of land measuring 15 kanals 2 marlas from Sucha Singh, predecessor-in-interest of defendant Nos.2 and 3 vide report No.474 dated 29.6.1994 and also got physical possession of the land measuring 16 kanals 8 marlas from Rajan Singh defendant No.1 vide report No.475 dated 29.6.1994 and khasra girdawari was also changed accordingly. However, due to inadvertence, the revenue Patwari at the time of preparation of record of rights could not carry out the change and due to mistake, jamabandi for the year 1993-94 and subsequent jamabandi of the year 1998-99 were prepared showing the defendants wrongly in column of possession over the suit land.
In the written statement, the case set up by the defendants is that the suit land was utilized in the year 1963 under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 and had vested in the State, who became owner of the suit property in the year 1971 and was a necessary party to be impleaded. It is further submitted that the land was allotted to the defendants in the year 1963 and possession was handed over by the Surplus Authorities, which was vested in the State on 24.1.1971 under Section 12 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 and is deemed to have been allotted to the defendants under the provisions of new Act.
On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed in which issue No.1 was in regard to as to "whether the plaintiff and proforma Ram Rikhi 2014.03.20 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.3604 of 2009 (O&M) 3 defendants are owner in possession of the suit land and entries of the revenue record regarding possession over the suit land are wrong and liable to be corrected ?".
Both the parties led their respective evidence and ultimately, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial Court vide its judgments and decree dated 13.5.2009 and the appeal filed by the plaintiffs was partly allowed by the Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.8.2009.
Aggrieved against the judgment and decrees of the Courts below, the present appeal has been filed.
Mr. Harbhagwan Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellants has made a statement at the bar that the respondents have accepted their possession and ultimately errors in the revenue record is required to be corrected.
On the other hand, Mr.Balsher Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has made a statement at the bar that the statement made by counsel for the appellants is correct. The appellants are in possession over the suit land and the entry in the revenue record showing the defendants to be in possession was incorrect and has submitted that the suit of the plaintiffs deserves to be decreed.
Though, there is no written compromise brought on record but since a statement has been made by the learned counsel for the defendants before this Court accepting the claim of the plaintiffs, therefore, this appeal has to be allowed.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of both the Courts below are hereby set aside in view of the Ram Rikhi 2014.03.20 17:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.3604 of 2009 (O&M) 4 statement made by learned counsel for the defendants that the plaintiffs are in possession over the land in dispute and the entries in the revenue record muchless in column No.5 of the jamabandi are wrong. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
11.3.2014 (Rakesh Kumar Jain)
RR Judge
Ram Rikhi
2014.03.20 17:21
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document