Regular Second Appeal No. 3716 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3716 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : February 04, 2010 Ramji Lal ....Appellant versus Gram Panchayat Baptoli ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. JS Hooda, Advocate, for the appellant L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) CM No. 11282.C of 2009 For reasons mentioned in the application which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 34 days in filing the appeal is condoned. RSA No. 3716 of 2009 This is second appeal by plaintiff Ramji Lal who has been unsuccessful in both the courts below. The plaintiff alleged that he is in possession of the suit land measuring 6 kanals 15 marlas as tenant for more than 50 years on payment of Rs 65/- per annum as chakota/rent under defendant Gram Panchayat. At the time of inception of tenancy, the defendant agreed not to eject the plaintiff from the suit land. The rent has also never increased. Accordingly, the plaintiff claimed to have acquired occupancy rights under Regular Second Appeal No. 3716 of 2009 (O&M) -2- sections 5 and 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. The plaintiff also claimed to have become absolute owner in possession of the suit land in view of provisions of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953. The defendant controverted plaint allegations and pleaded that the defendant is owner in possession of the suit land. The defendant was subsequently proceeded exparte in the trial court. The plaintiff led exparte evidence. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palwal vide judgment and decree dated 26.8.2008 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 2.4.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. It is undisputed that in the revenue record plaintiff's name appeared for the first time in khasra girdawari in column of cultivation in kharif 1973 crop. Suit was instituted on 3.5.2000. Consequently, possession of plaintiff was not for more than 30 years before the filing of the suit. Admittedly, prior to kharif 1973 crop, some other persons were in possession of the suit land as per revenue record i.e. jamabandi and khasra girdawari produced by the plaintiff in his own evidence. Under section 5 (2) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, presumption of acquiring tenancy rights under section 5(1) of the said Act can be raised if a tenant proves that he has continuously occupied the land for 30 years and paid no rent thereof Regular Second Appeal No. 3716 of 2009 (O&M) -3- beyond the amount of land revenue thereof and the rates and cesses for the time being chargeable thereon. In the instant case, however, the plaintiff even as per his own evidence has not fulfilled these conditions because plaintiff had not occupied the suit land continuously for 30 years before the filing of the suit. In addition thereto, according to the plaintiff's own version and evidence he was tenant over the suit land on payment of Rs 65/- per annum as rent. Consequently, it cannot be said that the plaintiff paid no rent beyond the amount of land revenue and rates and cesses chargeable for the suit land. On the other hand, the amount of Rs 65/- per annum as rent for 6 kanals 15 marlas land only was a size-able amount in the year 1973. It was certainly beyond the land revenue and rates and cesses applicable to the suit land. Accordingly, both the conditions specified in section 5(2) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 are not fulfilled by the plaintiff even according to his own pleadings and evidence. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is manifest that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that he had acquired occupancy rights in the suit land and consequently has become owner thereof. There is no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the judgments of the courts below. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L.N. Mittal ) February 04, 2010 Judge 'tiwana'