RSA No.1773 of 2007(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.1773 of 2007(O&M) Date of Decision: September 5, 2011 Maru Ram and others .....Appellants v. Randhir and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.O.P.Goyal, Sr.Advocate with Mr.D.D.Bansal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Shailender Jain, Advocate for the respondents. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J. The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 5.4.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, dismissing appeal filed by present appellants-plaintiffs against judgment and decree dated 8.6.2006 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Gurgaon, vide which suit filed by present appellants-plaintiffs was dismissed with no order as to cost. Briefly stated, shamlat Bachat land of village Samaspur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon alongwith other land of proprietors of the said village was acquired by Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Gurgaon. Respondents-defendants no.1 to 3 were proprietors of the said village. They had sold their land to Bhima son of Shri Shadi for sale consideration of `60,000/- vide sale deed bearing Vasika No.895 dated 13.7.1965. Mutation was also sanctioned in favour of Bhima. Present appellants-plaintiffs are RSA No.1773 of 2007(O&M) -2- successors of Bhima. Plea has been taken that the rights in shamlat deh including the shamlat bachat land of respondents-defendants no.1 to 3 also devolved upon Bhima-vendee and after his death upon the present appellants-plaintiffs. Hence, plea has been taken that they are entitled to compensation regarding acquisition of the said land. Respondents-defendants no.1 to 3 contested the suit filed by appellants-plaintiffs by taking the plea that their rights in the shamlat bachat land were never sold to predecessor-in-interest of present appellants-plaintiffs and hence, they are having no right to claim compensation of the said acquired land. Suit filed by appellants-plaintiffs was dismissed by learned trial Court. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, appellants- plaintiffs filed appeal, which was also dismissed by learned first appellate Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Only dispute to be decided between the parties is as to whether vide impugned sale deed, Ex.P1, which was admittedly executed by respondents-defendants no.1 to 3 in favour of predecessor-in-interest of appellants-plaintiffs regarding their land, share of respondents-defendants no.1 to 3 in shamlat bachat land of Village Samaspur was also sold to predecessor-in-interest of present appellants-plaintiffs or not. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants- plaintiffs that all the rights including right in shamlat bachat land were sold by respondents-defendants no.1 to 3 to predecessor-in-interest of RSA No.1773 of 2007(O&M) -3- appellants-plaintiffs and hence, they are entitled to seek compensation of the acquired shamlat bachat land, which has been controverted by learned counsel for the respondents-defendants. Law is sell settled that some land was deducted from holding of proprietors by imposing a pro-rata cut on holdings at the time of consolidation to be used for common purposes of the entire proprietary bodies. Mutation of entire shamlat land was sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat. Even bachat land was mutated in favour of Gram Panchayat. However, as per East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, and the Rules framed thereunder, management and control of bachat land does not vest in Gram Panchayat. Bachat land is a land which was left after utilising the land for common purposes, as mentioned in consolidation scheme. The said land is normally recorded in the revenue record as Jumla Mushtarka Malkan Hasad Rasad Khewat. The same also describes the share of each proprietor, which is to the extent of land contributed by such land owners. On this point reliance can be placed upon a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Gurjan Singh and another v. Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur and another, 2000(2) PLJ 7, and a full Bench of this Court rendered in Jai Singh and others v. State of Haryana, 2003(1) PLJ 429. Hence, as the bachat land of Village Samaspur, Tehsil and District, Gurgaon, was also acquired by the Government, compensation was distributed to all the original proprietors as per their shares. Present appellants-plaintiffs are claiming their rights on the ground that the said rights were sold to them by respondents-defendants no.1 to 3. However, perusal of sale deed, Ex.P1 shows that rights of RSA No.1773 of 2007(O&M) -4- respondents-defendants in shamlat bachat land were never sold. There is no mention of shamlat bachat land in the sale deed. The sale deed only shows that all rights in connection with the land has been sold. However, tthe same does not include the rights in shamlat land. Even the mutation was sanctioned regarding the land sold as mentioned in the sale deed. Mutation regarding share in shamlat land has not been sanctioned in favour of present appellants-plaintiffs or their predecessor-in-interest. On the point reliance is also placed upon Duli Chand and others v. Jaswant Singh and another 1991(1) RLR 546, wherein it was observed that if all the rights in connection of the land have been sold the same would not automatically include the rights in shamlat land. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by the courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 5.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No.