Dholidars cannot alienate land without proper authority; sales deemed void ab initio if executed without stipulation. Limitation for challenging sale deeds is three years from execution.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, J.

With the consent of the learned counsel representing the parties, three connected cases, namely, two regular second appeals and a cross-objection shall stand disposed of by this common order.

CM-2327-C-2024

2. This is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, read with section 151 CPC to seek condonation of delay of 1860 days in filing the cross-objections.

3. It has been stated by the cross-objectors that in the year 2017, they received notice after admission of the appeal for regular hearing. At that time, their counsel advised against necessity of filing the cross-objections in view of provisions under Order 41, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, on reconsideration of the matter, the cross-objections have been filed along with an application for condonation of delay.

4. Per contra, reply has been filed by the appellant claiming that there is a delay of 34 years as the appeal was filed on 19.01.1989. Moreover, the rights have accrued in favour of the appellant which should not be whittled away by condoning the delay. It has been asserted that the name of counsel who advised them against filing of cross-objections has not been disclosed.

5. This court has considered the submissions and perused the application for condonation of delay as well as its reply.

6. In the considered view of the Court, the delay deserves to be condoned on the following grounds:-

(i) The learned counsel representing the cross-objector has specifically stated that in the year 2017, he was engaged and he advised against filing cross-objections on the ground that necessary relief shall be granted under Order 41, Rule 33 CPC. Hence, it is not correct on the part of the appellant to claim that the name of the counsel has not been disclosed.

(ii) Connected regular second appeals are pending. The cross-objections are in the aforesaid appeals only. Hence, in view of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and others v. Mst. Katiji and others, AIR 1987 SC 1353, Imrat Lal and others v. Land Acquisition Collector and others (SC) 2015(2) RCR (Civil) 437, Dhiraj Singh (Deceased) through LRs v. Haryana State and others, 2015 (2) RCR (civil) 507 and Jethu Ram(Deceased) through Lrs v. Union of India and others, 2016(4) Law Herald, 3166 the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

(iii) The appellant is not correct in contending that the delay in filing the cross-objection is of 34 years. It may be noted here that the cross-objectors have appeared after admission of the appeal in the year 2017 and the period of delay has been calculated from that date. In any case, even if the delay is of 34 years, still the cross appeals are pending. Hence, the cross-objectors are entitled to condonation of delay.

7. With the consent of the learned counsel representing the parties, taken on Board for final disposal.

Main

8. Brief Facts And Introduction

8.1 Smt. Bhagti Devi and defendant nos.1 to 5, 8 and 10 were owner of half share of land comprised in khewat no.67, whereas Sh. Devi Chand was owner of the remaining part of the khewat. Similarly, the land comprised in khewat no.248 as per jamabandi for the year 1966-67, belongs to the aforesaid persons as 'Dholidars' in the same share. 'Dholidar' is a special grant given to the persons who are working for the benefit of the community like working in a temple, mosque, shrine or at any other religious place or for doing some charity work. Ordinarily, such 'Dholidars' enjoy possession and usufructuary of the land given to them without payment in lieu of the services rendered by them to the public at large or particular community. However, such grant is revokable if they stop rendering the service. The State of Haryana has passed the Haryana Dholidar, Butimar, Bhondedar and Muqararidar(Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2010 Act') while vesting the ownership on such licencees. It has been recogniz