RSA No. 1566 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1566 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 09, 2009 Braham Dutt and another ...........Appellants Versus Gram Panchayat, Budka ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.R.K.Jindal, Advocate for the appellants. ** Sabina, J. Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Gurgaon vide judgment and decree dated 3.4.2007. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the District Judge, Gurgaon vide judgment and decree dated 14.2.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. The facts of the case, as noticed by the District Judge in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment, read as under:- “ 2. Brief facts of the case, as pleaded in the plaint, are that as per the settlement record prepared at the time of first regular settlement in the year 1877. Hem Singh, Sewag Ram and Net Ram were in joint possession as Dohlidars of the agricultural land measuring 1 Bigha 18 Biswas comprising of Khasra Nos. 786 (1 RSA No. 1566 of 2008 (O&M) 2 Bigha) and 788 (18 Biswas), situated in village Bhudka, Tehsil & District Gurgaon, fully detailed in para No.4 of the plaint, having inherited the same from their father Ram Bux. The said land is now being represented by new khasra Nos. 993 (1 Bigha) and 1012 (1 Bigha) as per jamabandi for the year 1996-97. Sewag Ram died issueless whereas Hem Singh and Net Ram were succeeded by their sons Ramji Lal and Chanda respectively and,thus, inherited the suit land. Chanda went on Tirath Yatra in or about the year 1985 but did not return thereafter and has not been heard since then, hence, was to be presumed dead leaving behind no heir. Ramji Lal had left behind his sons Sohan Lal and Seria. The latter died issueless whereas the former was succeeded by the plaintiffs and their sister Sunheri. Hence, they inherited the dohlidari rights of the suit land and were in possession of the same as such but in the revenue record i.e. Jamabandi for the year 1996-97, Chanda has been wrongly shown as dholidar in possession. The said entry was, thus, liable to be corrected/rectified. The suit land was given by owners of the Shamlat Deh of village Bhudka to their common ancestor Ram Bux as Dohli gift for religious purposes and,thus, as per the Riwaj-a-am of Gurgaon District, the same was irrevocable. Though under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, the suit land stood vested in the Gram Panchayat, but under Section 4(3)(1) of the said Act, their dohlidari interest could not be vested in it and the defendant having stepped in the shoes of the proprietors of the Shamlat Deh. RSA No. 1566 of 2008 (O&M) 3 was bound by the terms of Dohli-gift granted to their predecessor- in-interest. But the defendant, under the garb of aforesaid wrong entries in the revenue record, threatened to dispossess from suit land, hence the suit. 3. Upon notice, the defendant contested the suit by filing written statement wherein it took various preliminary objections viz cause of action, bar or jurisdiction under Sections 13 and 13-C of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties, maintainability of the suit in the present form, limitation, estoppel, locus standi and concealment of material facts from the court. On merits, it is pleaded that neither Chanda nor the plaintiffs were dohlidars in possession of the suit land. They are not even the L.Rs of said Chanda. The suit land was owned and possessed by it having stood vested in it and the plaintiff had no concern, whatsoever, with the same. Moreover, they were never recorded in possession of the suit land as dohlidars nor ever performed any religious duty. With these broad submission, while denying other contents of the plaint,dismissal of suit was prayed. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled are for declaration or permanent injunction as prayed for on the grounds mentioned in the plaint?OPP 2. Whether plaintiffs have no cause of action?OPD 3. Whether Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide RSA No. 1566 of 2008 (O&M) 4 the suit in view of sections 13 and 13-C of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act?OPD 4.Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the necessary parties?OPD 5.Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD 6.Whether the suit is time barred ?OPD 7.Whether plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 8. Relief.” After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Plaintiffs had filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that there was no material on record apart from the statement of the plaintiff-Braham Dutt that Chanda son of Net Ram had gone for pilgrimage in the year 1985 and had not returned back. Chanda had been recorded in possession of the suit land as a Dholidar till the year 1997-98. Plaintiffs failed to rebut the presumption of truth attached to the entry in the jamabandi placed on record for the year 1997-98. Plaintiffs were rather shown to be in possession of land bearing khasra Nos. 686(1-0), 688(1-0) and 689(1-0). It has further been observed by the learned Additional District Judge in the judgment that Chanda was not the only son of Net Ram, but Net Ram had two sons Dhanna and Chander. The said findings of fact given by the Courts below do not call for any interference by this Court in appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this case which RSA No. 1566 of 2008 (O&M) 5 would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge November 09 , 2009 arya