IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I. RSA No. 2900 of 2002(O&M)

Shyam Lal …Appellant Versus Hem Raj & Anr. …Respondents II. COCP No. 3975 of 2018 Shyam Lal …Petitioner Versus Hem Raj & Ors . …Respondents Reserved on: 16.01.2026 Pronounced on: 22.01.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate and Mr. G.S. Bidhan, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Rajiv Kataria, Advocate and Mr. Dolly Shiwani, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The plaintiff of the case, now represented through his legal representatives, is before this Court in the present appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, whereby his suit seeking pre-emption of sale has been dismissed, though it has concurrently been held that he cannot be dispossessed from the suit land except in due course of law.

2. In order to avoid confusion, parties are being referred to as per their status before the trial Court.The record of the trial Court, as available on the DMS, has been perused.

3. The undisputed factual position is that defendant No.2 Jagdish Lal was a co-sharer in the total land measuring 34 kanal 8 marla situated in the revenue estate of village Safidon, District Jind. Vide sale deed No.1348 dated 04.03.1992, he sold his 26/688 share, measuring 1 kanal 9 marla, to defendant No.1 Hemraj for a consideration of ₹30,000/-. On the same day i.e. 04.03.1992, defendant No.2 also executed a lease deed bearing Wasika No.1346 in favour of defendant No.3.

4. The plaintiff instituted the suit asserting that he had been a tenant on the suit land for more than 25 years; that he had raised constructions in the nature of house, shops and had planted a mango garden; and that being a tenant, he possessed a preferential and superior right of pre-emption over the sale effected by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1. Upon refusal of the defendants to acknowledge his claim, the suit was filed.

5. During the pendency of the proceedings, defendant No.2, the vendor, was given up by the plaintiff.

6. Defendants No.1 and 3 contested the suit, raising preliminary objections and disputing the plaintiff’s claim of tenancy. It was pleaded that defendant No.3 was in possession of the suit land pursuant to the lease deed dated 04.03.1992 and that the plaintiff had no enforceable right of pre-emption.

The consideration of sale was also disputed.

7. In rejoinder, the plaintiff reiterated his stand.

8. Upon framing of issues and appreciation of evidence, the trial Court recorded a finding that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land and further held him to be a tenant. However, it was simultaneously found that the suit land had been brought within the municipal limits of Municipal Committee, Safidon, vide notification Ex.D3, and consequently the right of pre-emption stood extinguished. The lease deed dated 04.03.1992 in favour of defendant No.3 was held to be a fictitious document executed to frustrate the plaintiff’s claim. Accordingly, the suit seeking pre-emption was dismissed vide judgment dated 11.10.1999, though it was clarified that the plaintiff could not be dispossessed except in due course of law.

9. Aggrieved by the finding that the plaintiff was a tenant, defendants No.1 and 3 preferred an appeal. Significantly, the plaintiff did not challenge the dismissal of his suit for pre-emption. Thus, the only issue before the First Appellate Court was whether the plaintiff had successfully proved his status as a tenant over the suit land or not.

10.1 The First Appellate Court undertook a detailed re-appreciation of the revenue record and evidence. It traced the entries from the earliest jamabandi for the year 1956-57 onwards and found that the plaintiff was nowhere recorded as a tenant. The land was shown as rafae aam initially and subsequently, the plaintiff’s possession was reflected as gair maurusi, coupled with the entry “bila lagan bawaja tameer makaan”. The rent column was conspicuously blank throug