R.S.A. No. 1402 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1402 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.1.2009 State of Haryana and others ....Appellants Versus Kanwal Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. Madan Gupta, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana. Mr. Vikrant Hooda, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 4.10.2006 and 10.10.2007 passed by the learned Courts below vide which the suit for possession filed by the plaintiff/respondents stands decreed by both the Courts. The plaintiff/respondents brought a suit for possession on the plea that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff was the owner of the land in dispute which stands inherited by them. The case set up was that the land in dispute was given as dholi to one Bhooran as dholidar, who is stated to have expired without any legal heir. Thus, it was claimed that the suit land reverted back to the true owner and the plaintiffs being successors-in-interest were entitled to possession of the land. The suit was contested by the State on the plea that as Bhooran R.S.A. No. 1402 of 2008 (O&M) -2- dholidar left behind no legal heirs, the land was mutated in favour of the State, and is in possession since the year 1964, and that stand of the plaintiff/respondents that they were dispossessed in the year 2000 was patently wrong and not proved on record. Both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact holding the State to be unauthorised occupant, and possession of State cannot be said to be adverse, as it cannot get title by way of adverse possession. The finding is based on the settled law by this Court in the case of Gurbux Singh and others Vs. Hari Chand Jain and others, 2003(1) Latest Judicial Reports, 257, Bhajan Kaur Vs. Gurmej Singh, 2000(2) Latest Judicial Reports 405 and the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in P. Chelliah Vs. Mottayandi Thevar (died) and others, 2003(1) Latest Judicial Reports 207. Once the title by way of adverse possession was not proved and the plaintiff/respondents are held to be owner of the property, they were certainly entitled to decree for possession. The, the learned Courts below on the material and evidence brought on record have rightly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondents, which does not call for any intereference by this Court. The appeal raises no substantial question of law for consideration by this Court. Otherwise also, appeal is barred by limitation. The appellant- State has moved an application for condonation of delay on the plea that the delay has occurred due to administrative procedure involved in R.S.A. No. 1402 of 2008 (O&M) -3- taking decision in filing the appeal. A positive stand has been taken in the application that the grounds of appeal were drafted on 26.2.2008. In spite of this, the appeal was filed only on 2.5.2008. No explanation is forthcoming for the delay since 26.2.2008. No sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of delay. Consequently, the appeal is ordered to be dismissed on merits as well as being time barred. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge January 13, 2009 R.S.