JUDGMENT :

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. The present Regular Second Appeal (hereinafter referred to as “RSA”) has been preferred by the appellants–defendants/State assailing the judgment and decree dated 25.02.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, whereby the judgment and decree dated 15.06.1996 rendered by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambala City, partly decreeing and partly dismissing the suit instituted by the respondents–plaintiffs, was modified.

1.1. The appellants/State seek reversal of the impugned judgment and decree and pray for dismissal of the suit of the respondents–plaintiffs, contending that the appellate interference has resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice. It is respectfully urged that the impugned judgment and decree is vitiated by patent perversity, grave errors of law, and a fundamentally erroneous appreciation of the pleadings and evidence on record, thereby occasioning serious injustice. The appellants/State, therefore, beseech this Court to exercise its appellate jurisdiction and set aside the impugned judgment and decree.

2. The sequence of events antecedent to, and culminating in, the present appeal may be succinctly set out as under -

“The suit property comprises land measuring 96 Kanals, situated within the revenue estate of village Tangail, Tehsil and District Ambala, as more fully and particularly described in the head-note of the plaint.

The suit land was originally owned by the State of Haryana and was classified as inferior land. The same was allotted to the plaintiffs, namely Sant Ram, Data Ram, and Asa Ram, for a fixed period of ten years commencing from Kharif 1966 and concluding with Rabi 1976, on payment of Chakota, the plaintiffs belonging to the Kahar community, which stood notified as a backward class by the State of Haryana. It was averred that the plaintiffs, upon allotment, undertook substantial efforts and incurred considerable expenditure to render the land cultivable and regularly and punctually paid the Chakota. During the subsistence of the allotment, one of the allottees, Sant Ram, expired, whereupon his legal heirs stepped into his shoes and continued to cultivate the land as allottees.

It was further pleaded by the plaintiffs that in the year 1976, they submitted an application for purchase of the suit land before the Tehsildar (Revenue) pursuant to the directions of the Deputy Commissioner (Collector), Ambala. In furtherance thereof, the plaintiffs deposited the sale consideration at the rate of Rs.40/- per killa along with other requisite charges. It was asserted that a sale deed was executed in their favour by the State of Haryana; however, the relevant file was allegedly withheld in the office of the Kanungo for obtaining the requisite sanction of the Deputy Commissioner, as a consequence of which no sale deed was ultimately issued to the plaintiffs. It was further averred that after an inordinate lapse of time, the plaintiffs were informed by the office of the Kanungo that the Tehsildar (Sales) proposed to auction the suit land and that the land would not be transferred in favour of the plaintiffs, thereby compelling them to institute the present suit.”

3. The suit was contested by the defendant, namely the State of Haryana. In its written statement, it was admitted that the suit land had been leased out to the plaintiffs strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in the lease deed. It was pleaded that in the year 1970, the Revenue Department transferred the work relating to the disposal of the inferior evacuee land in question to the Rehabilitation Department and that the plaintiffs could seek transfer of the land on concessional rates prescribed by the Government only upon due and strict compliance with the prescribed terms and conditions. It was further asserted that upon expiry of the lease period, the possession of the plaintiffs became unauthorized, rendering them liable to be ejected forthwith.

3.1