RSA No.738 of 2010(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.738 of 2010(O & M) Date of Decision:24.05.2010 Bood Singh & anr. .... appellants Versus Haryana State through Collector, Hisar & anr. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Anurag Jain,Advocate for the appellant **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. CM No.2079-C of 2010 After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, delay of 17 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM disposed of. RSA No.738 of 2010(O & M) This is plaintiffs' second appeal challenging the judgement and decrees of the court below whereby their suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiffs were occupancy tenants of the suit property and their occupancy tenancy rights have matured into ownership with consequential relief of permanent injunction, was dismissed. It is the case of the appellants that suit property is in their possession and earlier to them, it was in possession of their predecessor- in-interest who was inducted as tenant over the suit land and he made the suit land cultivable. At that time, it was agreed that grandfather of the RSA No.738 of 2010(O & M) 2 plaintiffs would only give the share of the yield in the suit property and would never be evicted. Thus, their long possession as occupancy tenant has matured into ownership. It is further case of the appellants that application filed by the defendant in the Court of Assistant Collector, First Grade, against their father was dismissed. Thereafter, father of the plaintiffs filed an application seeking declaration on 25.11.1987 in the court of Assistant Collector, First Grade, but the aforesaid court had no jurisdiction and, thus, the suit of the father of the plaintiffs was returned. Now, the respondents are bent upon to interfere in their possession over the suit property and, thus, the necessity arose to file the present suit. The suit was resisted on behalf of respondents submitting that the suit property was allotted by the Government to one Onkar Narain, the freedom fighter in the year 1955 on lease for 20 years. However, in August 1970, Collector Hisar, allotted other property to said Onkar Narain in lieu of suit property and possession of the suit land was taken by Haryana Government on 04.08.1970 and, thus, the Haryana Government was owner of the suit land and the plaintiffs were in unauthorised possession of the suit land. There was no agreement between the parties with regard to allotment of suit land. With these averments, dismissal of the suit was prayed for. After hearing both the parties, trial Court decided all the issues in favour of the defendant and consequently the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgement and decree of the trial Court, plaintiffs filed an appeal which was also dismissed vide impugned judgement and decree passed by Additional District Judge, Hisar. While dismissing the appeal, the finding of fact was recorded by the Lower Appellate Court that appellants have failed to prove their case by adducing cogent and convincing evidence. This Court has RSA No.738 of 2010(O & M) 3 also perused the impugned judgement and decrees passed by the courts below. There is not an iota of evidence on record of the case to prove that grandfather of the appellants was inducted as tenants over the suit land and he made the suit land cultivable after spending a huge amount on the land, whereas there is ample evidence on record to prove the stand taken by the respondents that the suit land was allotted to Onkar Narain, freedom fighter and thereafter he was allotted another plot and the possession of the suit land was taken back by the Government of Haryana. Thus, no fault can be found with the findings of facts recorded by the courts below that appellants are in unauthorised possession of the suit land which is owned by the defendant-respondents. In view of the aforesaid findings, I find no substantial question of law arising in this appeal. No merits. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 24.05.2010 neenu