RSA No. 2822 of 2006(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2822 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 07, 2009 Ramji Lal ...... Appellant Versus Smt. Jessia @ Jasia and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Surinder Sheoran, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 24. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the courts below dismissing the suit of the appellants claiming that they had become owners of the land in dispute since they were occupancy tenants thereon. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether a change made in the revenue entries without notice to the effected parties and without any order by the competent authority are to be ignored being void and illegal? ii)Whether an entry in the revenue record which is long, continuous and uninterrupted holds presumption in its RSA No. 2822 of 2006(O&M) 2 favour? iii)Whether the onus to prove payment of batai beyond land revenue was on the respondents and once they have failed to prove evidence in support thereof, adverse inference should have been drawn against them? iv)Whether the revenue record produced by the appellant before the court has been misinterpreted by the Courts? It would be seen that all the questions are pure questions of fact. On appreciation of evidence the Courts below have held that neither the appellants were proved to be in cultivating uninterrupted possession nor were they able to establish their primary plea that the land had been given to their ancestors in 1926. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or on such misreading of evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 C.P.C. Consequently this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE September 07, 2009 sunita