A patta issued in favor of a claimant prevails over subsequent land classification, establishing ownership despite state claims of Gochar classification.

Judgment

19/08/2021

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.4.2001 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nagaur (‘the trial court’) and judgment and decree dated 16.12.2003 passed by Addl. District Judge, Nagaur (‘the appellate court’), whereby, the suit filed by the respondent – plaintiff for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction has been decreed and appeal filed by the State has been dismissed, respectively.

The suit was filed by the plaintiff inter alia with the averments that land (500 x 500 ft.) situated in khasra no.291 ad-measuring 55.12 bigha was given by way of patta in 1952 by one Onkar Singh erstwhile Jagirdar to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.31/- and possession was also handed over to the plaintiff. The same was being used for keeping livestock. The boundaries the the said plot were also indicated in the plaint.

It was averred that the officers of the Settlement Department instead of recording khasra no.233 as Gochar, indicated the plaintiff’s land as Gochar, whereas, the same should have been recorded as belonging to the plaintiff. It was submitted that for lack of entry in the records, the plaintiff has not been permitted to raise the construction. Notice was issued to the State under Section 80 CPC , however, they have refused to recognize the plaintiff as owner of the land. Based on the said submissions, relief of declaration and permanent injunction was sought.

Written statement was filed by the defendant – State and its officers inter alia indicating that no such plot given by the then Jagirdar, is situated at Jodhpur - Nagaur road, the land is Gochar and as such, the same has been rightly recorded, the plaintiff is not in possession. In special pleas, it was indicated that the plaintiff was seeking to trespass over the land and as such, the suit be dismissed.

Based on the averments made by the parties, the trial court framed six issues. On behalf of the plaintiff, four witnesses were examined and nine documents were exhibited. On behalf of the defendants, one witness was examined and three documents were exhibited.

After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the land in question was owned by the then Jagirdar and that patta (Exhibit-4) was issued to the plaintiff on 30.9.1952 and that even if the land in question has been recorded as Gochar, the ownership of the plaintiff was not affected.

Issue no.2 to 5 were decided together and by indicating that as the plaintiff is in possession of the land and title is in his favour, the defendants were not entitled to dispossess the plaintiff and consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed.

Feeling aggrieved, the appellant – State filed first appeal.

The first appellate court by its impugned judgment thoroughly reconsidered the evidence available on record and came to a similar conclusion as arrived at by the trial court and consequently, dismissed the appeal filed by the State.

Learned counsel for the appellant attempted to make submissions that the judgments impugned passed by the two courts below cannot be sustained. Submissions were made that witness PW/2 – Jugal Kishore appeared in the witness box to prove the patta issued in favour of the plaintiff, however, he was not even born on the date the patta was issued and, therefore, his evidence could not have been believed. It is submitted that patta issued in favour of the plaintiff is apparently forged.

Further submissions were made that as the land in question was Gair Mumkin Gochar, the plaintiff had no right over the said land and as such, the judgments impugned passed by the two courts below give rise to substantial questions of law.

Learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgments impugned. It was submitted that the findings recorded by the two courts below are findings of fact. It was further emphasized that the allegations about the patta being forged are baseless and during course of submissions learned counsel has placed on