Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
Raghu Nath and Others - Appellant
Versus
Ajmat Singh and Others - Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 2865 of 2010
Decided On : 08-04-2019
East Punjab Holdings(Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 - The consolidation of holdings took place in the village in the year 1955. The plaintiffs claimed ownership of the land based on the correction made by the Consolidation Officer. The court found that the correction made by the Consolidation Officer was valid and the mutation based on it was also valid.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they are owners in possession of the suit land. The suit was dismissed by the lower courts. The main issues were the difference between a suit for cancellation of a written instrument and a suit for declaration of status or right, and whether a suit filed for declaration without challenging any written instrument can be barred by time. The facts of the case involved a small error in the consolidation of holdings, resulting in a dispute between the parties. The plaintiffs claimed ownership of the land based on the correction made by the Consolidation Officer. The lower courts dismissed the suit on various grounds, including the finality of a decree passed in a previous suit and the bar of limitation. The High Court held that the suit was not for cancellation of a decree but for a declaration of ownership, and therefore not barred by time. The court also found that the mutation based on the correction made by the Consolidation Officer was valid. The appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiffs.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the difference between a suit for cancellation and a suit for declaration, and the applicable provisions of the Special Relief Act, 1963. The court also examined the issue of limitation and held that the suit was not barred by time. The court further considered the validity of the mutation based on the correction made by the Consolidation Officer and found it to be valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a suit for declaration of ownership is different from a suit for cancellation of a written instrument. The court also held that an entry or error in the revenue record does not necessarily give rise to a cause of action. The court further held that the suit was not barred by time and that the mutation based on the correction made by the Consolidation Officer was valid.
Result: The regular second appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiffs.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. Plaintiffs-Appellants are in the regular second appeal against the judgment passed by both the courts below dismissing the suit filed by them for declaration that the appellants are owners in possession of the suit land and mutation no.2053 sanctioned on the basis of the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer is valid and binding.
2. In the considered view of this court, following substantial questions of law arise for determination:-
(i) What is the difference between a suit for cancellation of a written instrument and suit for declaration of status or right?
(ii) Whether a suit filed for declaration that the plaintiffs are owners in possession without challenging any written instrument can be held to be barred by time without examining the facts which gave rise to the suit?
3. Facts of this case clearly prove that a small mistake by the Consolidation Authorities can result into a long drawn litigation between the parties.
4. Consolidation of Holdings as per the provisions of East Punjab Holdings(Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1948 Act') took place in the village in the year 1955. In the Consolidation of Holdings, plaintiffs, who were owners of 114 kanals and 12 marlas of land were allotted 114 kanals and 17 marlas of land. Similarly, predecessors of the defendants were also owners of 114 kanals and 17 marlas of land, whereas they were allotted 114 kanals and 11 marlas of land. After the Consolidation of Holdings were complete, necessary documents were prepared and therein a small error crept in while referring to land comprised in rectangle No. 76 in place of rectangle No.91. The dispute between the parties can be demonstrated from the small table.-
Raghu Nath etc.
Before Consolidation
After consolidation(Allotted)
80/24/2(1-16)
88/9(8-0)
76/16/2(2-15)
76/13(6-0)
25(7-16)
10/1(1-0)
14/1(2-2)
14(5-8)
87/4(8-0)
7(8-0)
17(17-1)
15(6-0)
5(8-0)
79/21(8-0)
24 (6-15)
16(6-0)
88/1(8-0)
22(8-0)
25(6-1)
17(5-8)
2(8-0)
23(8-0)
91/4(5-11)
18(6-0)
3(8-0)
5(6-0)
23/2(4-13)
4(8-0)
114-12
6(6-0)
24(5-8)
5(8-0)
7(5-8)
25(6-0)
8(8-0)
8(8-0)
98/4(5-8)
5(5-19) 114-17
Faggu Singh etc.
Before Consolidation
After consolidation(Allotted)
76/16/2(2-15)
91/14(5-8)
43/1(8-0)
79/19(8-0)
14/1(1-2)
15(6-0)
2(6-9)
20(8-0)
17(4-1)
16(6-0)
10(8-0)
11/2(4-12)
24(6-15)
17(5-8)
42/4/2(4-0)
12(7-11)
25(6-1)
18(6-0)
5(8-0)
9(6-4)
91/4(5-11)
23/2(4-13)
6(8-0)
8(8-5)
5(6-0)
24(5-8)
7(8-0)
3(2-0)
6(6-0)
25(6-0)
29/23(8-0)
80/16/1(3-4)
7(5-8)
98/4(5-8)
18(8-0)
114-11
8(6-0)
5(5-19)
13(6-0)
114-17
5. It is apparent from the aforesaid tabulated information that the land which was with Faggu Singh etc., predecessors of the defendants was allotted to plaintiffs as it is but a small error was committed by the consolidation authorities while mentioning Rect. No.76 in place of Rect. No.91 with respect to land comprised in Khasra Nos.13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18. It would be significant to note here that after Consolidation of Holdings the land situated in a revenue estate was divided into rectangles which are normally of 25 acres and each rectangle ordinarily has 25 acres of land and each acre was assigned khasra number/killa number.
6. After the Consolidation of Holdings was complete, the possession was exchanged in accordance with Sections 21 and 23 of the Act of 1948. However, on account of error with reference to rectangle number, consequent entry in the revenue record in the ownership column continued in the name of predecessor of the defendants. It may be mentioned here that after consolidation of holdings, predecessors of the defendants were never allotted any land in Rect. No.91, although, they were owners thereof befo
AI
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
