RSA-1931-1990 (O&M)

- 1 –

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

RSA-1931-1990 (O&M)

Reserved on : October 17, 2022

Date of decision : October 19, 2022

State of Haryana and others

…Appellants

Vs.

Phula and others

…Respondents

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present :

Mr. Deepak Kumar Grewal, DAG, Haryana

for the appellants.

Mr. Anas Ahmed, Advocate for

Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate

for respondents No.4, 5, 10 to 14, 17 and 22.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.

This appeal is preferred by the State of Haryana challenging

the judgment and decree dated 21.4.1988 passed by the Additional

Senior Sub Judge, Jind decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff as

well as the judgment and decree dated 19.9.1989 passed by the District

Judge, Jind, vide which the appeal filed by the State of Haryana was

dismissed.

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiffs, who

are 25 in number have filed a suit praying for a decree of declaration

that they are owner in possession of the suit land. The land was

acquired by the State of Haryana for public purpose, i.e. for construction

of Shamdo minor (canal minor). However, no compensation was paid to

the plaintiffs. The minor was dug but later on the same was discontinued

SATISH KUMAR

2022.10.28 09:38

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

RSA-1931-1990 (O&M)

- 2 –

and the land was reverted back to the plaintiffs and since then, the

plaintiffs are owner in possession of the suit land.

It is submitted that since no compensation was paid, the

entry in the revenue records, which was changed as gair mumkin rajbha

(canal minor) is against the record and existing position at the spot,

therefore, is creating a cloud on the rights of the plaintiffs. Therefore, a

declaration be issued that the revenue record is liable to be corrected.

The suit was contested by the District Forest Officer, Forest

Range, Jind–defendant No.2 as a statement was made on behalf of the

State of Haryana through Collector, Jind that it is only defendant No.2,

who is the contesting respondent.

The defendant No.2 has filed the written statement in which

an objection was raised with regard to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court

as well as that the suit is time bared. It is stated that the land was

transferred to the Forest Department vide a letter dated 3.3.1972 as a

protected forest and it remained in possession of the Forest Department.

On merits, the specific averments made by the plaintiff in

para 2 of the plaint that no compensation was paid while digging the

shamdo minor was neither denied nor it was stated that the

compensation has been paid. The only reply is that some plantation is

done at the spot.

The trial Court framed the following issues :-

1.

Whether the Shamdo Minor previously ran

through the suit land and whether the said

land had been delivered by the plaintiffs

without compensation ? OPP

SATISH KUMAR

2022.10.28 09:38

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

RSA-1931-1990 (O&M)

- 3 –

2.

Whether there existed any agreement

between the plaintiffs and the defendants

State that the land would revert to the

owners-plaintiffs as and when Shamdo minor

was abolished ? OPD

3.

Whether the plaintiffs are owners in

possession of the suit land on account of the

Shamdo minor having ceased to run through

the same ? OPP.

4.

Whether possession of the suit land was

delivered to the plaintiffs after the abolition of

the Shamdo minor ? OPP.

5.

Whether the defendants are the owners in

possession of the suit land ? OPD.

6.

Relief.”

The respondent-plaintiff led their evidence and one of the

plaintiffs-Sirya appeared as PW1 and tendered the Jamabandi ExP1.

The defendant examined DW2 one Jagdish Chander, Forest Range

Officer and closed the evidence.

On appreciation of evidence, the trial Court recorded a

finding that it has come in the statement of PW1 that the