Possession continues until lawful dispossession occurs, with title passing to the auction purchaser upon full payment, regardless of sale certificate issuance.

JUDGMENT :

MANDEEP PANNU, J.

1. Present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the State of Haryana through Collector, Hisar, defendant no. 3/appellant No.1, and the Tehsildar (Sales)- cum-Managing Officer, Hisar, defendant no. 4/appellant no. 2, challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below whereby the learned Sub Judge First Class, Hisar decreed the suit of the plaintiff–Smt. Reshma (now deceased, represented through her legal representatives)/respondent no. 1 vide judgment and decree dated 11.06.1991, which was further affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, on 02.03.1994, in the appeal preferred by defendant nos. 1 to 6.

Brief Facts

2. The case set up by the plaintiff was that she was in possession of land measuring 21 kanals 15 marlas, comprised in khasra numbers as detailed in the headnote of the plaint and as reflected in the jamabandi for the year 1983–84, and that she had been in continuous cultivating possession thereof for the last more than 20 years. It was alleged that report roznamcha no. 143 dated 07.12.1987 and no. 151 dated 11.12.1987, purporting to show delivery of possession, were merely paper transactions, illegal, without jurisdiction and ineffective against her rights. It was further prayed that the defendants be perpetually restrained from interfering in her possession over the suit land in any manner on the basis of revenue entries and that no entries should be effected in their favour. It was averred that although four separate civil suits had been filed, the same were consolidated. The plaintiff alleged that she remained in possession as a lessee under defendant no. 4, having regularly paid lease money, and that her possession had continued uninterrupted for more than two decades. It was claimed that her uncle Ram Chander had initially taken possession of 39 kanals 13 marlas including the suit land in the year 1957, had spent about Rs.20,000 to make the land cultivable, and had further paid lease money to the tune of Rs.60,000 besides land revenue and other taxes. The plaintiff further alleged that defendant no. 1, i.e., Government of India through Chief Engineer (North Zone), Akashvani and Doordarshan, Jamnagar House, Shahzaban Road, New Delhi, had transferred the land measuring 21 kanals 15 marlas in an auction sale to defendant no. 1 without any notice or opportunity to her. It was pleaded that the symbolic and actual possession shown as delivered to defendant no.1 by defendant no.4 vide DD entries 143 and 151 dated 7312.1987 and 11.12.1987 respectively were sham and fictitious transactions having no legal effect upon her rights. It was specifically averred that the proceedings undertaken by defendant no. 4 without issuing any notice or providing opportunity of hearing to her were against the provisions of Section 19 read with Rule 117 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, and that the subsequent transfer of the land in favour of defendant no.1 on 14.09.1987 was illegal. It was thus contended that the Tehsildar (Sales) had no right to issue warrant of possession and that the proceedings relating to delivery of possession were wholly void. It was pleaded that she continued to be in occupation as lessee under defendant no. 4 and that the so-called delivery of possession in favour of defendant no.1 was ineffective, void and not binding on her.

3. The defendants contested th