IMPORTANT POINT
Long-term possession under the Punjab Tenancy Act can lead to ownership rights, even in cases involving evacuee property.

JUDGMENT :

(Deepak Gupta, J.) :

Civil suit bearing No.623 of 1991 for declaration and permanent injunction regarding land in dispute, as filed by the plaintiffs (respondents herein) was dismissed by the trial Court on 11.11.1988. The appeal preferred by them i.e., plaintiffs bearing CA No.85 of 1988 was accepted and consequent thereto, the suit was decreed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment dated 13.09.1991. Thus, the present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defendants (appellants herein) against the judgment dated 13.09.1991 of the First Appellate Court, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs.

2. The trial Court record was called. The same has been perused. In order to avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as per their status before the trial Court.

3.1 The land in dispute is 13 kanal 12 marlas, situated within the revenue estates of Village Raipur Kalan, Tehsil Ballabgarh (Haryana) detailed and described in para No.1 of the plaint. Plaintiffs claimed to be in possession of the said land for the last more than 100 years as Ghair Maurusee Kuzaran, since the time of their ancestors. According to them, original owners of the suit land were Mohammadans, who had given the land to the forefathers of the plaintiffs on rent and the terms and conditions as recorded in record of rights was “Bila Laggan Malkan Bawjahah Derina Kast”.

3.2 As per plaintiffs, they and before them, their forefathers had been paying only the land revenue and other taxes regarding the suit land and that with the passage of time, they acquired occupancy rights in the suit land by virtue of Sections 5, 6 and 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. It was further pleaded by the plaintiffs that with migration of Muslim owners of the suit land to Pakistan on partition of the country in 1947, the rights and interest of the said Muslims vested in the custodian – defendant No.3 but it did not affect the occupancy rights of the plaintiffs, which they had acquired before migration of Muslims. Plaintiffs pleaded further that with the passing of Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietory Rights) Act, 1952, (for short, ‘the 1952 Act’), which came into force w.e.f 15.06.1952, their occupancy rights were perfected into ownership and so, rights of the custodian in the suit land were extinguished.

3.3 In order to seek declaration to the above effect, plaintiffs approached Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Ballabgarh but their case was dismissed on 23.04.1979. They preferred appeal before the Collector but during pendency of that appeal, suit was withdrawn with permission to file the fresh suit in the Civil Court on the same cause of action due to formal and technical defect and that the Collector vide order dated 30.05.1980 granted the necessary permission.

3.4 Further case of the plaintiffs was that Tehsildar (Sales) Gurugram, acting for defendant No.3- Custodian Evacuee Property and contrary to the factual & legal position, allotted the suit land to defendant No.4- Ibban. In substitution of this contention, it was averred later that Tehsildar (Sales), Gurugram intended to sell the suit land in open auction by ignoring the rights and interest of the plaintiffs.

3.5 Plaintiffs also pleaded that in view of revised Rules and Instructions, governing the sale and transfer of surplus Evacuee Property notified by the Erstwhile Government of Punjab on 11.07.1962, the plaintiffs were also entitled to get the land, as they had deposited the amount of Rs. 1365.08 as price of the land under the orders of the Tehsildar (Sales), Gurgaon, but their application was wrongly rejected. In the alternative, plaintiffs also pleaded that they had become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession.

3.6 With all the afore-said contentions, petitioners prayed for a decree for declaration that they are owners and in possession of the suit land in equal shares. They further prayed for decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants No.1 to 3 from allotting the suit