Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
Hon’ble Ms. Ritu Bahri
RSA No. 497 of 1995 (O&M)
Faridabad Complex Administration
v.
Ram Chand (since deceased) through LRs and ors.
{Decided on 29/05/2018}
(i) Predecessor in interest of plaintiff were recorded as Gair Marusi but they were actually not tenant at will – They were not paying any rent and were holding the land like owners because of previous possession.
(ii) Predecessor in interest of plaintiff were in more than 12 years prior to 1950.
(iii) Even if the land was recorded in the ownership of Shamlat Deh – The plaintiff were in possession qua their shares reflected in the jamabandies for the year 1939-40 to 1969 -70 and hence, their land has been rightly excluded from Shamlat Deh and held not to be included in definition of Shamlat Deh.
(iv) Since, the revenue entries were never challenged or altered and no steps were taken to get these entries changed, they will retain a presumption of truth for the purpose of possession and share of proprietors
(v) The entire evidence shows that they were in possession without payment of rent and their possession was like that of owners – The main object of giving benefit to the proprietors, who were in long possession, was that they should not be divested of their right of ownership – The possession of co-sharer, who was actually cultivating the land, should be protected as the main aim of the Act was to bring out agrarian reforms in the State.
(vi) Plaintiff proved that vide notification dated 13.01.1972 land in dispute was excluded from concerned Gram Sabha and Act of 1971 came into force on 15.01.1972 – Since only land which, vested in Gram Panchayat was to vest in Faridabad Complex Administration by virtue of Act of 1971 and the suit land was already excluded from Gram Sabha therefore suit land cannot vest in Government even though revenue records were not updated appropriately.
(vii) Suit held to be rightly decreed in favour of plaintiffs declaring them as owner in possession as co-sharer in the shamlat deh of village—Land not to vest in Faridabad Complex Administration
(B) Words & Phrases – Rai Sharah Malkana Ba Baja Kabja Sabka – Land was being held like owners because of old and previous possession.
(C) Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, S.44 – Revenue Record – Presumption of truth – A presumption of truth is attached to the entries made in the revenue record and the Courts should not embark upn an appellate inquiry into their correctness – This presumption of correctness would apply only to genuine, not forged or fraudulent documents – Evidence Act, 1872, S. 35. (Para 26)
(D) Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, S.13 – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Shamlat Deh – Suit land had already been excluded from Gram Sabha vide notification – Challenge is to inclusion of suit land in urban locality – Held; since the plaintiff did not claim exclusion of suit land from Shamlat Deh, jurisdictions of Civil Court was not barred.
Ms. Ritu Bahri, J:-This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 22.11.1994 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad, dismissing an appeal filed by defendant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the defendant’) against the judgment and decree dated 15.06.1993 passed by the Sub Judge Ist Class, Faridabad, whereby suit filed by plaintiff-respondents for declaration, has been decreed.
2. Ram Chand etc.-plaintiffs (respondents herein) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the plaintiffs) filed a suit for declaration to the effect that land measuring 104 Kanals 9 Marlas, situated within the revenue estate of village Lakkarpur, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, was owned and Possessed by them as co-sharers in the shamlat deh of village and defendant be restrained from claiming any right or possession thereon. Case set up by the plaintiffs was that after enactment of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961, the land referred to above was erroneously shown to have vested in Gram Panchayat, Lakkarpur. Thereafter, mutation entered by the revenue authorities was attested in favour of the Gram Panchayat. In fact, the land in question was never used for common purposes of the villagers as shown in the revenue records. Possession of the suit property remained with the plaintiffs as proprietors of Har Do Thok of the village. After the enforcement of Faridabad Companies (Regulation and Development) Act, 1971, all the revenue estate of village Lakkarpur, including the area of Gram Panchayat, was included in Faridabad Complex Administration. After enactment of the above said Act, Gram Panchayat, Lakkarpur, ceased to exist. It was further pleaded that before commencement of this Act, land in dispute was excluded vide notification No.EP/1795 dated 13.01.1972 from the area of Gram Sabha, Lakkarpur. Thus, the land in question ceased to vest in Gram Panchayat w.e.f. 13.01.1972 and the provisions of Village Common Land Act, 1961 were not applicable to this land. The Faridabad Complex Regulation and Development Act, 1971, came to force on 15.01.1972. Validity of Haryana Municipal Common Lands Act 15 of 1974 was challenged before this Court, whereupon whole of the Act had been declared unconstitutional. Plaintiffs had requested the defendants not to proceed under Section 4 of the Haryana Public Premises Act, 1972 in order to evict the plaintiffs, but they refused to do so. Hence, the suit.
3. Upon notice, defendant (appellant) filed written statement, Where in it has been pleaded that jurisdiction of the civil court was barred under Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation and Development) Act, 1961 and under Section 51 of Faridabad Complex (Regulation and Development) Act. It was further pleaded that the suit was bad for want of service of notice under Section 52 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 and under Section 80 CPC. The suit was time barred. It was denied that the plaintiffs were owners in possession of the suit land as recorded in the latest Jamabandi for the year 1984-85. It was admitted that Gram Panchayat of village Lakkarpur had ceased to exist. All other allegations made in the plaint were denied and prayer for dismissal of the suit was made.
From the pleadings of the parties, following preliminary issues were framed by the trial Court:-
1. Whether civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit? OPD
2. Relief.
4. Trial Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, came to a conclusion that jurisdiction of the civil court to decide the controversy involved in the present suit, was not barred and vide judgment dated 19.02.1992, issue No.1 was decided in favour of the plaintiffs.
Thereafter, following issues were framed by the Trial Court on 23.03.1992:-
1. Whether plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land? OPP
2. Whether the entries in the previous record existing in favour of defendants are wrong and illegal, void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
