Regular Second Appeal No. 1247 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Regular Second Appeal No. 1247 of 2008 Date of Decision: 20.10.2008 Balkar Singh …Appellant Versus State of Punjab and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Rakesh Chopra, Advocate for the appellant. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. Plaintiff Balkar Singh, Kulwant Singh, Gulzar Singh and Gurmit Singh are sons of Faqir Singh, residents of village Harbanspura, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib. They have preferred the present regular second appeal. Plaintiffs had instituted a suit on 25.3.1996 against the State of Punjab, the Collector, Fatehgarh Sahib, Secretary Canal and Irrigation Department, State of Punjab at Chandigarh and Executive Engineer, Canal and Irrigation Department, Patiala, seeking declaration that they are absolute owners in possession of the suit land detailed and described in the head-note of the plaint. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land. It was averred that vide sale Regular Second Appeal No. 1247 of 2008 2 deed No. 2162 dated 10.8.1987 plaintiff Balkar Singh had purchased land out of khasra No. 8 from Faqir Singh. Land was also purchased on 17.6.1977 out of khasra No.9. It has been stated that at the time of execution of sale deeds, plaintiffs were in exclusive possession of the suit land. Earlier thereto possession of the vendors of the plaintiffs and their predecessor was continuous as owners. Therefore, possession of the plaintiffs after the execution of sale deeds and of their vendors prior thereto has always been open, hostile, as of right, as owner continuously without any interruption. It has been further pleaded that at the time of execution of sale deed there was no mutation in the revenue record of defendant and Irrigation Department, State of Punjab. Notice of the suit was issued. The suit was contested by the State by filing written statement. It was stated that no cause of action has accrued to the plaintiffs as the State Government is the owner of the suit property. On merits, it was submitted that the suit land was acquired by the Irrigation department vide Award No. 131/LAO BP Patiala in the year 1958-59 after payment of compensation to the then owner, Faqir Singh son of Munder Singh, resident of village Harbanspura, he has no claim over the land. Replication was filed controverting the facts stated in the written statement and reiterated the facts given in the plaint. After completion of pleadings, following issues were drawn by learned lower Court:- 1. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to declaration as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present Regular Second Appeal No. 1247 of 2008 3 form? OPD. 3. Whether plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the suit? OPD 4. Relief Following additional issues were framed on 20.9.2002:- 1.A Whether the plaintiffs are bonafide purchasers for consideration and good faith? OPP. 1.B Whether the plaintiffs have become owners by way of adverse possession? OPP. Evidence was led by the parties. Various documents were relied upon. Learned trial Court relied upon the statement of DW.1 R.K.Behl, Sub Divisional Officer, Irrigation Department, Patiala, who deposed that the suit land was acquired by the Irrigation Department after payment of full compensation to Faqir Singh, the then owner of the suit land, therefore, he had no claim in the land after receipt of compensation. Therefore, he was not competent to sell the suit land. The suit land was legally and rightly acquired by the Irrigation Department by adopting due process of law. Copy of Jamabandi for the years 1993-94 Ex.D2 and copy of mutation No. 2143 Ex.D3 along with copy of Award dated 24.2.1959 Ex.D1 were also relied upon by the defendants. Faqir Singh is none else but father of plaintiffs. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of learned trial Court, plaintiffs had filed an appeal in the Court of learned District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib and the same was decided by learned Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib. Documents produced and Regular Second Appeal No. 1247 of 2008 4 evidence was appreciated by learned lower Appellate Court. Learned Additional District Judge concurred with the findings returned by learned trial Court. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff. He has stated that plaintiff No.1 Balkar Singh was a bonafide purchaser. When he had purchased the land there was no entry in the revenue record from which it could be know that the land had been acquired by the State. Therefore, plaintiff No.1 being bonafide purchaser cannot be dispossessed and is entitled to declaration as prayed for. I am unable to accept this contention of learned counsel. Award was announced in the year 1959. Sale deed was executed in the year 1977 and 1987. Faqir Singh is none else but father of plaintiff No.1. Therefore, plea that the plaintiffs were bonafide purchasers and have no knowledge regarding the acquisition is too difficult to swallow. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by two Courts below are based on just appreciation of the evidence. No substantial question of law arise in the present appeal. Hence the same is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge October 20, 2008 “DK”