R.S.A.No.3400 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.3400 of 2008 Date of Decision : 06.07.2009 Sunder ...Appellant Versus Jee Ram and Others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit for separate possession of land measuring 1 Kanal 15 Marlas comprising of khewat No.3 min khatuni No.6 min bearing khasra No.56(1-5), 58//3(0- 1), 59//2(0-6) and khewat No.65 khatuni No.125 bearing khasra No.57//1/2 (0-3) situated at Village Sukhdaspur H.B.No.442 Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, was dismissed. It is the case of the plaintiff that the residential houses exists on the aforesaid land and, therefore, the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities of partition as agricultural land, are without jurisdiction. It was contended that in terms of provisions of Section 4 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 the land in dispute cannot be partitioned by the Revenue Authorities. The learned First Appellate Court has examined the said issue in minute detail and has returned a finding that two conditions are R.S.A.No.3400 of 2008 2 necessary for applicablity of the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. First, it is occupied as the site of a village; and secondly, it is not assessed to the land revenue. The phrase 'site of a village' was found to be in terms of para No.131 of the Settlement Manual as a part of abadi deh. It was further found that para 11 of Appendix VII of the Punjab Settlement Manual, village site is determined at the time of settlement and only one number is assigned to it. It was found that mere construction of houses other than the site reserved for abadi will not make the provisions of the Act as inapplicable to such land. A perusal of the claim of the plaintiff would show that the suit is in respect of land, which has been assigned khasra numbers as an agricultural land. Therefore, the contention that the said khasra numbers are the khasra numbers of abadi deh is not tenable, as the same are not the khasra numbers of abadi deh reserved at the time of settlement. In view of the above, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court. Dismissed. 06.07.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE