Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) - CM No.4226-C of 2012

For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 16 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

RSA No.1565 of 2012

2. This is second appeal by legal representatives of Baljeet Singh original plaintiff since deceased, having been non-suited by both the courts below.

3. Baljeet Singh-plaintiff filed suit against defendant-respondent- Gram Panchayat alleging that suit land measuring 17 Kanals 16 Marlas and some other land was given to plaintiff’s father out of Bachat land i.e. surplus land left out after utilization for common purposes during consolidation of holdings. Since then plaintiff’s father was in possession of the suit land and after his death, plaintiff is owner in possession thereof. Plaintiff has been cultivating the same. Plaintiff’s father was proprietor in the village. Land was taken for common purposes pro-rata from the land of proprietors of the village during consolidation of holdings. The land left out after utilizing for common purposes was re-distributed among proprietors and in this manner, plaintiff’s father got the suit and other land. However, defendant threatened to take forcible possession of the suit land from the plaintiff. Accordingly, plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in plaintiff’s possession over the suit land in any manner.

4. Defendant-Gram Panchayat controverted the averments of the plaintiff and raised certain objections. However, subsequently none appeared for the defendant. Accordingly the defendant were proceeded ex parte.

5. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon vide judgment and decree dated 15.01.2011 dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. First appeal preferred by plaintiff’s legal representatives has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Gurgaon vide judgment and decree dated 13.12.2011. Feeling aggrieved, legal representatives of plaintiff have filed this second appeal.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file.

7. The plaintiff claimed ownership and possession over the suit land on the ground that it was allotted to his father out of Bachat land. However, no record of consolidation of holdings has been produced to depict that land for common purposes was taken out from the land of proprietors and that after utilising for common purposes, suit land and other land left surplus was distributed among the proprietors and that in the said distribution, the suit land was given to plaintiff’s father. Consequently whole basis of the plaintiff’s claim is completely knocked out.

8. In addition to the aforesaid, jamabandis placed on record by the plaintiff in his ex parte evidence depict defendant-respondent Gram Panchayat to be owner as well as in possession of the suit land. Consistent revenue entries recorded since jamabandi for 1962-63 till jamabandi for 1998-99 depicting Gram Panchayat to be owner as well as in possession of the suit land are sufficient to prove that plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land and never remained in possession thereof. Presumption of correctness attached to entry in jamabandi has been further strengthened by continuity of the same entries in favour of defendant-respondent for a long period. Said presumption has not been rebutted by oral evidence of the plaintiff.

9. It is also worth mentioning here that plaintiff claimed to be in cultivating possession of the suit land. However, the suit land is recorded to be Banjar Kadeem in jamabandis. Consequently, the suit land was never cultivated and is not cultivable. Thus plaintiff’s claim is further negatived. It may also be mentioned that there is also entry in jamabandi that the suit land was leased out for one year by Gram Panchayat . It again confirms possession of defendant Gram Panchayat over the suit land.

10. Thus examined from any angle, it becomes manifest that plaintiff never remained in possession of the suit land and was