RSA No.1650 of 2009(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No.1650 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: March 08,2011 Goli ......Appellant Versus Gram Panchayat, Badhran,Tehsil Palwal .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.J.S.Hooda,Advocate for the appellant Mr.Ashok Kaushik,Advocate for the respondent **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that he was inducted as a tenant at will over the suit property since the year 1958. The suit land was of inferior quality and was not fit for cultivation. Plaintiff made the suit land cultivable by spending a huge amount. At the time of creation of tenancy, it was agreed that the plaintiff would not be ejected from the suit land nor he would be liable to pay any rent as the land was banjar kadim. The possession of the plaintiff had not been disturbed till date. Plaintiff had become owner of the suit land by virtue of long tenancy. Hence, the suit for declaration was filed by the plaintiff to the effect that he had become owner in possession of the suit land. RSA No.1650 of 2009(O&M) 2 Defendant-Gram Panchayat in its written statement denied the contents in the plaint. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether plaintiff is owner in possession of suit land mentioned in para no.1 of the plaint, as alleged?OPP 2.Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 3.Whether plaintiff has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit?OPD 4.Whether plaintiff is estopped by his acts and conduct to file the present suit?OPD 5.Whether the Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit?OPD 6.Relief” Vide judgment and decree dated 17.05.2008, the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Palwal dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 15.12.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Both the Courts below,after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that the possession of the plaintiff had not matured into ownership in terms of Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Propreitary Rights) Act, RSA No.1650 of 2009(O&M) 3 1952. Learned first appellate Court has held that the plaintiff had been able to show his possession over the suit property since the year 1962-63 but had failed to prove his possession for the last 12 years prior to the coming into force of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 without payment or rent or cess. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to successfully challenge the said finding of fact. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge March 08, 2011 arya