RSA No.3282 of 2008 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 3282 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: February 01, 2011 Tek Chand and others .....Appellants Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate,for the appellants. Mr.Deepak Jindal, Deputy Advocate General,Haryana **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration. The case of the plaintiffs in brief was that Kundan was owner of the land measuring 19 kanals 17 marlas. He had died issueless in the year 1967. The land of Kundan Singh escheated to the State of Haryana vide mutation No. 302 dated 8.3.1968. Sohan Lal and Fatto (both since deceased) had been cultivating the suit land as gair marusi under the previous owner Kundan and from 8.3.1968 onwards under the State of Haryana. Sohan Lal died in January 1978 and was succeeded by the plaintiffs, whereas, Fatto RSA No.3282 of 2008 (O&M) 2 died leaving behind his brother's son (i.e. Plaintiffs). Plaintiffs were in cultivating possession of the suit land as gair marusi / tenant at Will. State of Haryana has filed an ejectment petition under Section 7 of Haryana Public Premises Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 5.9.1983. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction on 9.9.1998 against the State of Haryana claiming themselves to be in possession of the suit land as gair marusi for the last more than 100 years. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court and the appeal against the same was dismissed by the Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.8.1994. The plaintiffs had,thus, acquired occupancy tenancy rights and had become owners in possession of the suit land. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiffs. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that after the death of Kundan, original owner, mutation No. 302 had been sanctioned in favour of defendant No.1. Sohan Lal and Fatoo had never been in cultivating possession of the suit land. The entries in favour of Sohan Lal and Fatoo in the revenue record were illegal, null and void. Plaintiffs have no relationship with Sohan Lal and Fatoo. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court”- “1.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree for declaration that plaintiffs are absolute owners in possession of the land in dispute and the revenue entries in the name of State Govt. are null and void ?OPP 2.Whether the suit is bad for non-joiner of necessary parties RSA No.3282 of 2008 (O&M) 3 and mis-joinder of the parties?OPD 3.Whether the suit is bared by principal of resjudicata?OPD 4.Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit?OPD 5.Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and conduct to file the present suit?OPD 6.Relief.” The trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 6.11.2007 and the same was upheld by the Additional District Judge Faridabad in appeal filed by the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 17.4.2008,. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves dismissal. Admittedly, the suit land was, initially, owned by Kundan and since the suit land owner had died issueless, the suit land escheated to the State of Haryana after his death. Mutation in this regard was sanctioned in favour of the State of Haryana. It has been held in Muni Ram and others vs. Phullia and Lalu 1974 PLJ 369 as under:- “6. On a review of the various judgments to which counsel have referred during the course of their submissions (Tota Ram v. Rana Bashisht Singh Chandra, 1952 L.L.T.1;Devki Nandan and others v. Shiv Lal, 1958 L.L.T. 40=1957 P.L.J. 47; Achhar Singh and another v. Smt. Kartar Kaur and another, 1959 PLR 231=1958 PLJ 70; Anant Ram and another v. Lakhbir Gupta, 1962 L.L.T. 43=1962 P.L.J.20 RSA No.3282 of 2008 (O&M) 4 and Raghbir Singh v. Beli Ram, 1967 P.L.R.(Delhi Section ) 396), the following propositions of law appear to me to be firmly settled:- (i) the intention of the landlord not to eject the tenant for ever should be seen as at the time of the inception of the tenancy. Any subsequent intention cannot ordinarily have any effect on the nature of the agreement which came into existence at the time of the commencement of the tenancy; (ii) mere length of possession does not entitle a tenant to acquire occupancy rights in the land in his possession as a tenant; (iii)the intention behind the wide scope left by Section 8 of the Tenancy Act is:- (a) not to restrict the tenant in any way from establishing his rights of occupancy; and (b)to presuppose the existence of a large set of conditions in which occupancy rights can arise outside the scope of Sections 5 and 6 of the Tenancy Act; (iv)in cases where circumstances exist from which an inference of an implied promise not to eject a tenant for ever can be raised, the burden of rebutting the said presumption must lie on the landlord, and if the landlord does not discharge that burden, effect should be given to the presumption and the tenant's claim to the occupancy tenancy should be accepted. (v) a strong presumption of the implied promise not to eject a tenant, and,therefore, of the existence of an occupancy RSA No.3282 of 2008 (O&M) 5 tenancy in favour of such a tenant can be raised:- (a) where a tenancy has lasted for many years during which there has been a rise in prices of agricultural produce and it is proved that no effort was made by the landlord to enhance the rent; and (b) where despite the existence of a stray entry which is inconsistent with the preceding and the subsequent entries over a large number of years, circumstances show that there was no intention to raise the rent or to recover anything for the owner from the tenant.” The case of the plaintiffs is that they had acquired occupancy tenancy rights in the suit property as they were in continuance possession of the suit property since long. The entries qua ownership continued in the name of Kundan till his death and thereafter mutation was sanctioned in favour of the State on 8.3.1968. Sohan Lal and Fatoo were described as gair marusi tenants on the basis of 50% batai as per the revenue record. Vide judgment Exhibit P20 dated 23.1.1991, the possession of the plaintiffs was held to be of gair marusi tenant over the property in dispute. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly held that the rights of the plaintiffs had not matured as occupancy tenants. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge February 01,2011 arya RSA No.3282 of 2008 (O&M) 6