RSA-4693 of 2016(O&M)

-1-

2023:PHHC:140269

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

RSA-4693 of 2016(O&M)

Date of Order:03.11.2023

Subhash Chand and another

.Appellants

Versus

Dharam Devi (Deceased) through her LRS and others

..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present:

Mr. Ajit Kumar Sharma, Advocate

for Mr. R.D.Yadav, Advocate

for the appellants.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J

1.

In this regular second appeal, the plaintiffs assail the correctness

of the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below while

dismissing their suit for grant of decree of declaration that they are the

occupancy tenants over the land measuring 28 kanals and 12 marlas.

2.

In order to comprehend the controversy involved in the present

case, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.

3.

The plaintiffs claim that their father late Sh. Ram Saroop started

cultivating the land as a “Gaur Marusi”(tenant) on the payment of rent @ 50

paise per kanal in the year 1970 and thereafter, he is continuously in

possession of the said property. They are entitled to be granted the status of

occupancy tenants and ownership in view of the The Punjab Occupancy

Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights), Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as

'the 1953 Act').

4.

The defendants while contesting the suit claimed that the

property has never been cultivated by either late Sh. Ram Saroop or the

NARESH KUMAR

2023.11.08 09:29

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

Chandigarh

RSA-4693 of 2016(O&M)

-2-

2023:PHHC:140269

plaintiffs. They claimed that the entries in the revenue record are wrong and

the land was allotted to the defendants by the custodian department.

5.

Both the courts on appreciation of the evidence have found that

in the previous suit, the plaintiffs also claimed that they have become the

occupancy tenants which was dismissed vide judgment Ex.P-11. Moreover,

the First Appellate Court also found that the plaintiffs have failed to fulfill

the requirements of the law with regard to the occupancy tenants.

6.

The First Appellate Court relied upon the judgment passed in

Jaleb Khan and others vs. Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon

and others, 2009(4) Recent Civil Reports 385 to hold that a “Gair Marusi”

tenant cannot claim that he has become “Marusi” and therefore entitled to

onwership.

7.

The learned counsel representing the appellants failed to draw

the attention of the court to any substantive error in the findings of fact

arrived at by the courts below.

8.

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and discussion, no ground

to interfere is made out.

9.

Dismissed, accordingly.

10.

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also

disposed of.

November 03, 2023

(ANIL KSHETARPAL)

nt

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned

:YES/NO

Whether reportable

:YES/NO

NARESH KUMAR

2023.11.08 09:29

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order/judgment

Chandigarh