R.S.A. No. 4032 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4032 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.11.2008 State of Haryana and another ..Appellants v. Ram Karan and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Navneet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the appellants. Mr. R.S. Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Atul Gaur, Advocate for the respondents. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The State is in appeal against concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below, whereby the suit filed by the respondents seeking declaration to the effect that they had become owners in possession of the land measuring 23 kanals comprised in Rect. No. 70, Killa No. 22/2(4-18), Killa No. 23/2(1-12), Rect. No. 81, Killa No. 6/2(7-4), Killa No. 15(8-0), Killa No. 24/2(1-6), situated at Village Dharni, Tehsil and District Fatehabad being occupancy tenants under the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietory Rights) Act, 1952 (for short, `the Act'). Consequently, relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from auctioning the suit land and from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land and from recovering any penal amount for use and occupation of the suit land was decreed. Briefly, the facts, as pleaded in the plaint and noticed by the learned courts below, are that respondent No.1-plaintiff and predecessors-in-interest of respondents No.2 to 8, namely, Sheo Karan were cultivating the suit land on nominal rent of 10 paise per kanal per annum, which was allotted to them in lieu of old khasra numbers during consolidation of holdings. The old khasra numbers were also being cultivated by the respondent No.1-plaintiff and Sheo Karan on nominal rent of 4 annas 3 pai per bigha pukhta. After the death of Sheo Karan, respondents No.2 to 8 inherited the occupancy rights and were cultivating the suit land along with respondent No.1-plaintiff. The rent of the land was never increased by the owner thereof. Under the circumstances, respondent No.1- R.S.A. No. 4032 of 2007 [2] plaintiff and Sheo Karan having acquired occupancy rights in the suit land filed a petition titled as “Ram Karan and others v. Custodian of Evacuee Property” before Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Hissar on 14.2.1964 which was allowed vide order dated 23.1.1965. As there was no appeal or revision filed against the order of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, the same attained finality. The suit came to be filed with the allegation that in spite of there being an order by the competent authority declaring the respondents as occupancy tenants, the suit land was sought to be auctioned. Both the courts below found merit in the contents raised by the respondents-plaintiffs and decreed the suit. The judgment and decree of the learned court below was sought to be challenged on the ground of perversity taking the plea that the material placed on record by the defendants-appellants has not been considered. However, learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to point out as to what material, which was relevant for the purpose of decision of the suit/appeal was not considered, keeping in view the fact that there was an earlier order passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade upholding the occupancy rights of the tenants, ` in terms of the provisions of Sections 2(a), 2(i) and 3 of the Act, they have been rightly conferred proprietory rights on the land in dispute. The findings recorded by the learned courts below are plain and simple findings of fact which cannot be held to be perverse. Accordingly, concurring with the reasoning given by the learned courts below, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 18.11.2008 mk