The presumption of truth in revenue entries can be rebutted by cogent evidence demonstrating independent possession prior to the statutory cut-off date.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J.

The instant writ petition is directed against Annexure P-5, as made by the Collector, Mahendergarh, upon, misal No. 44/VCL and against Annexure P-6, as made on Executive Revision No. 56 by the Commissioner, Gurgaon, wherebys, the present petitioners claim for a declaratory decree, thus, making them lawful owners in possession of the disputed lands, rather became declined, despite, the Assistant Collector concerned through Annexure P-4, assigning a declaratory decree to the present petitioners.

Brief facts of the case.

2. The present petitioners instituted a declaratory suit for making them the lawful owners in possession of the suit lands. However, thereins they also claimed that the revenue entries carried in the revenue records are erroneous, and, are required to be quashed and set aside.

3. On the contested pleadings of the litigants, the hereinafter extracted issues became formulated, and, thereons evidence became adduced, thus resulting in the learned Assistant Collector concerned, through Annexure P-4, proceeding to declare the petitioners as lawful owners in possession of suit lands, carried in Khasra No. 62/14/2 and 62/1/17 total standard area 3 K - 11 M which simple area comes to 14 K- 14M. However, the petitioners were declared to be evicted from the other suit khasra numbers.

" 1) Whether the applicants had been cultivating the disputed land for the last 50 years as owners ? OPP.

2) Whether the disputed land vest in the Panchayat ? OPP.

3) Relief...."

4. In the making of the above annexure, the Assistant Collector concerned, made reliance upon an order passed by the Assistant Director Consolidation (Ex. P-10), order whereof, became corroborated by the statement of Beant Singh, Office Kanugo concerned, with revelations thereins, that in lieu of Khasra No. 10/20, 11/1671 of the Gram Panchayat, Khasra No. 62/14/2(1-6), 62/1/17 (2-5) total 3K-11M standard area was allotted, from which simple area comes of 14K-14M, as there overs the petitioners and their fore-fathers were in possession since 1948.

5. The aggrieved Gram Panchayat preferred therea gainst, an appeal bearing No. 44/VCL, before the Collector Mahendergarh, who through Annexure P-5, after accepting the appeal proceeded to annul the order Annexure P-4, made on 02.02.1994.

6. The reason which became assigned by the learned Collector, Mahendergarh to quash Annexure P-4, became rested on the premise that the respondents in the said appeal were unable to produce any documentary evidence or any clinching oral evidence to substantiate, their claim that they were in independent, continuous cultivating possession, over the suit lands from 26.01.1950.

7. Therefore, it appears that the plaintiffs in the suit (supra) had ventilated a statutory ground, for the espoused decree becoming assigned to them, statutory ground whereof, became hinged upon the apposite savings clause to the definition of shamlat deh, as, embodied in Section 2(g)(viii), provisions whereof are extracted hereinafter.

2. (g) "shamilat deh" includes -

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

but does not include land which -

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

(v)

(vi)

(vii)

(viii) was shamilat deh, was assessed to land revenue and has been in the individual cultivating possession of co-sharers not being in excess of their respective shares in such shamilat deh on or before the 26th January, 1950; or

(ix) .......

8. It appears that the said ground became founded, despite in jamabandis (Annexures P-7 and P-8), the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners becoming revealed to be rather holding a limited status of a Gair Marusi over the disputed lands.

9. Therefore, it appears that given the above limited status of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs over the suit lands, which but is not co-equal to theirs holdings' thus independent cultivating possession of the suit lands, but as required by the savings clause (supra), that thereby, through Annexure P-5, the Collector concerned accepted the statutory appeal (supra), a