RSA No. 3929 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3929 of 2008 Date of Decision: January 21 , 2010 Amrit Singh and others ...... Appellants Versus Shanti and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.R.S.Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr.Atul Gaur, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.R.S.Sangwan, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. **** 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 concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellants for permanent injunction on the allegation that their ancestor had been a tenant on the land in dispute and had purchased it under the Pepsu Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 and thus the allotment which had been made to respondents No.1 and 2 was illegal and further that the appellants continued to be in possession of the land in dispute and consequently sought an injunction against their dispossession. RSA No. 3929 of 2008 2 The following questions have been proposed:- a) Whether the sale certificate (Ex.P21) signifying the grant of proprietary rights to Ram Sahai son of Kurda, the admitted predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff-appellants has ever been cancelled by any authority under the statute? b) Whether the said Ram Sahai son of Kurda was not entitled to purchase the land under his tenancy measuring 22 bighas 10 biswas comprised in Khasra No. 532 min on the date of purchase? c) Whether the provisions of chapter IV of the Act came into force only on 30.10.1956 and whether the purchase by Ram Sahai son of Kurda of the land under his tenancy underSection20 of the Act excluded the same from the surplus pool as per Section 32E of the Act? d) Whether on the exclusion of the land in dispute from the surplus pool, the same could have been disposed of by the State Government by allotment to defendants No. 1 and 2? e) Whether the orders of allotment of the land in dispute in favour of defendant-respondents No.1 & 2 is without jurisdiction and beyond the powers of the statutory authorities? f) Whether the grant of sale certificate allowing the purchase of the land in dispute in favour of Ram Sahai son of Kurda was within the jurisdiction of the Collector under the statute and whether the said order can be ignored without having been challenged or superseded by any subsequent order of a statutory authority superior to that of the Collector? Before dealing with the questions it may be necessary to notice that it is not disputed that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants was granted proprietary rights of 22 bighas and 10 biswas in Khasra No. 532 min. The mutation in regard to that is Ex.P-7. As per this mutation the number given to the land of which the predecessor-in-interest of the RSA No. 3929 of 2008 3 appellants became proprietor was 532/2. Annexures P-8 and P-9 are subsequent mutations which are inter se the family of the appellants. In these subsequent mutations the khasra number of the land allotted to the appellants has been mysteriously changed to 532/4. It is this singular unexplained transition which has resulted in the dismissal of the suit. It may be noticed that it is undisputed before me that out of original khasra No. 532 min, 45 bighas 5 biswas land was declared surplus. The respondents were allotted some of that land being landless Harijans and the document relating the title in their favour categorically mentions that they were allotted land in khasra No. 532/4. Once it is held that the appellants have not been able to link the land under their present possession with the land in respect of which proprietary rights were granted to their predecessor-in-interest, questions No. (a),( b), (c), (d) and (e) do not arise. Consequently holding the questions proposed as not arising in face of the finding of fact that the land over which the appellants are in possession has not been linked by them to the land qua which proprietary rights were conferred upon their predecessor-in-interest, this appeal is dismissed as also as the application for stay. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE January 21 , 2010 sunita