R.S.A.No. 304 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 304 of 2009 Date of decision: 27.7. 2009 Piara Singh ......Appellant Versus Khazan Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. A.P.Bhandari, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs Piara Singh (present appellant) and Pall Singh filed a suit for declaration. The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 25.1.2008. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the District Judge, Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 26.8.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff/appellant. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the trial Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:- “ The plaintiffs have become owners in R.S.A.No. 304 of 2009 2 possession of agricultural land comprised in Khewat No.927, Khatoni No.1501, Rect. No.218, Killa No. 20 (8- 0), 22/1(5-1), total measuring 13 kanals 1 marla situated within the revenue estate of village Chhainsa, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad by virtue of jamabandis for the year 1972-73 to 1997-98. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs as well as predecessors-in-interest have been cultivating the suit land as tenant “ Gair Maurausi under the defendants and their predecessors-in-interest on payment of rent chakota of Rs.2/- per acre per year for the last more than 40 years. It is further submitted that when the suit land was given to Shri Ranga Singh son of Sher Singh, father of the plaintiffs by Shri Sarupa, the predecessor of defendants, the said land was banjar and kadim and the father of the plaintiffs made the suit land cultivate by spending a lot of money and labour. It is further submitted that the time of giving the land for cultivation on rent, it was settled between predecessors of plaintiffs and defendants that neither the predecessors of plaintiffs would be ejected from the land nor the rent would be increased by the predecessors of defendants. It is further submitted that Shri Sarupa had died long ago and the defendants have succeeded him and now the mutation of inheritance was also sanctioned in favour of R.S.A.No. 304 of 2009 3 the defendants. Similarly, father of the plaintiffs also died on 16.12.1997 and after his death, the plaintiffs have inherited their tenancy rights in the suit land as cultivating possession, therefore, the plaintiffs and their father had acquired occupancy tenancy rights in the suit land. It is further submitted that since the prices of land have increased and the defendants have become greedy, now they are threatening of backout from their agreement never to eject and never to enhance the rate of rent of chokota and are adamant to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land illegally and forcibly, hence, the present suit has filed by claiming the relief mentioned above. 3. Notice of the suit was given to the defendants, who failed to appear before the Court despite proper service, therefore, the defendants were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 9.3.2004.” After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration that they had become owner in possession of the suit land by virtue of having acquired occupancy tenancy rights. Admittedly as per the revenue entries, the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land has been described as Pattedar and the rate of Chakota has been described in column No.9 as Rs.2/- per acre per year. Since the R.S.A.No. 304 of 2009 4 plaintiffs have not been described as Maurusi, they cannot acquire occupancy rights merely on the basis of their long possession over the suit land as lessees. In case the plaintiffs were described as Maurusi and were only liable to pay land revenue and nothing over and above the same, they could have been declared to have acquired occupancy tenancy rights but in the present case, the plaintiffs are lessees on payment of Chakota. Hence, they cannot acquire the occupancy tenancy rights. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 27, 2009 anita