R.S.A. No. 1027 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1027 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 1.3.2011 Hans Raj and others ......Appellants Versus Gram Panchayat, Sanghar Sarisata and another .......Respondents ***** CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. L.N. Verma, Advocate, for the appellants. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration that they had inherited the tenancy rights of their father Jagat Ram regarding the suit land and defendant Gram Panchayat had no concern with the suit land. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that Jagta Ram father of the plaintiffs had taken the suit land on lease from Custodian Department in the year 1965-66. Jagta Ram had been paying the lease money to the tune of ` 200/- per month to the Central Government. Jagta Ram continued cultivating the suit land during his life time till the year 1988. After the death of Jagta Ram plaintiffs had inherited the tenancy rights of their father. The entries in the revenue record, however, continued in the name of Jagta Ram. Patwari had, however, refused to record the plaintiffs as tenant on a report made by the plaintiffs qua death of their father on 30.3.2006. Gram Panchayat had no concern with the suit land. R.S.A. No. 1027 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Defendants, in their written statement, averred that Gram Panchayat had become owner of the suit land in terms of the order dated 13.8.1985 passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.3913 of 1979. Gram Panchayat had been auctioning the land on lease including the suit land every year in an open auction. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs have inherited the tenancy rights of their father regarding land as detailed and described in the head note of plaint as alleged ? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP. 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD. 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is bad for non joinder of necessary parties ? OPD. 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is time barred ? OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and conduct to file the present suit ? OPD. 7. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action and no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD. 8. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 27.1.2010, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Sirsa vide judgment and decree R.S.A. No. 1027 of 2011 (O&M) 3 dated 5.1.2011. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Gram Panchayat was recorded as owner of the suit land vide mutation No.1043 sanctioned on 6.8.2007. Before that Central Government was recorded as owner of the suit land. The case of the plaintiffs was that they were in possession of the suit land and they placed reliance on the entries in the jamabandi depicting their father Jagta Singh to be in possession of the suit land. Although, a presumption of truth is attached to the entries in the jamabandi, but the said entries are rebuttable. Defendants, in order to rebut the entries in the jamabandi, proved on record various documents vide which the land had been auctioned every year. A perusal of Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-3, shown during the course of arguments, reveal that the suit land bearing khasra No. 70//1 (6-8), 2(7-0) also formed part of the auction proceedings. Both, the Courts below after appreciating the evidence on record have given a finding of fact that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit land and rather the Gram Panchayat had been auctioning the suit land on lease from time to time. The said finding of fact calls for no interference. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 1, 2011 Anand