R.S.A.No. 2641 of 2009 (O&M) {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2641 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:July 16, 2009 Municipal Council Khanna & another ---Appellants versus Balbir Singh & others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.P.S.Dhaliwal,Advocate, for the appellants *** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they be declared owners of the property in dispute. The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khanna vide judgment and decree dated 28.3.2008. In an appeal the said judgment and decree were upheld by Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 10.12.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. The facts of the case as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in paras 2 to 4 of its judgment read as under:- “The case of the plaintiff is that he file a case No. 173/95 with R.S.A.No. 2641 of 2009 (O&M) {2} regard to suit property and other property u/s 42 of the consolidation Act, Punjab (hereinafter to be called as the Act for convenience) titled as Balbir Singh and others vs. Gram Panchayat of village Bhattian and others in the court of Addl. Director Consolidation of Punjab, Mohali which was decided in favour of the plaintiff on 10.4.96 declaring them to be owner of the suit land and other properties and no appeal has been filed by any of the parties against the said order and the same has become final and as such, plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land, that the Ld. Addl. Director Consolidation of Punjab, transferred the land measuring 2 kanals comprised in Khasra No. 17/10 to Gram Panchayat: that plaintiff supplied the copy of the order dated 10.4.1996 to the revenue Patwari for incorporating the order in the revenue record but on inquiry, Patwari told that the papers have been misplaced by him, that after the decision dated 10.4.96 defendant Municipal Council Khanna extended its limits and covered the revenue estate of village Bhattian and same has been reflected illegally in the revenue record at the back of the plaintiffs without any notice to the plaintiffs; that plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land in view of order dated 10.4.96 which was passed prior to the extension of limit of Municipal Council, Khanna and as such, plaintiffs have right, title or interest in the suit property: that plaintiff asked the defendant many times to admit their claim and to get corrected the revenue record which has been illegally transferred in the name of Municipal Council Khanna R.S.A.No. 2641 of 2009 (O&M) {3} but with no effect and plaintiffs even sent a registered legal notice u/s 80 CPC dated 17.7.02 on the defendants and defendant no. 2 even sent a reply to the notice but no effect which necessitated the filing of the suit by the plaintiffs. Defendants no. 1 and 2 i.e appellants filed written statement contesting the suit on the preliminary objections that the suit in the present form is not maintainable as plaintiffs have concealed true facts from the court. It was asserted that true material facts are that Municipal Council Khanna decided to extent the limits of Municipal Council Khanna and passed a resolution No. 1/488 on 30.4.1994 and sent the case of extension of limits to the Punjab Government and Punjab Government after completion of all the documents and formalities, published the proposed notification No. 10/33/96-LG-3/9208 dated 13.9.96 and gram panchayat was given time to file objections against the proposed notification and even inhabitants of the area proposed to be included in the municipal limits were also asked to file objections within the time limits but plaintiff did not file any objection against the proposed notification and after deciding the objections filed by others, the Punjab government has extended the limits of Municipal council Khanna and published final notification No. 10/33/96-5-LG-3/17091 dated 23.10.98, and as such, after publishing the notification, limits of Municipal Council Khanna was extended and has become the owner of the land previously owned by Gram Panchayat or any department of R.S.A.No. 2641 of 2009 (O&M) {4} Punjab Govt. and mutation in the revenue record was also entered and sanctioned in the name of M.C.Khanna and as such, the process for extending the limits or Municipal council Khanna, started w.e.f. 30.11.94 and if after 30.11.94, the plaintiffs have filed any alleged proceedings before Addl. Director Consolidation Punjab, Mohali, then the same have no bearing on the ownership rights of the answering defendant in the suit land and moreover, the Municipal council Khanna was not arrayed as party in the alleged proceedings and as such, Municipal Council Khanna is absolute owner of the suit land; that the plaintiffs are in illegal possession of the suit land owned by Municipal Council Khanna and Municipal Council Khanna is adopting due process of law for getting the possession from the plaintiff and it was denied if plaintiffs have become owner of the suit land in view of order dated 10.4.1996, rather the defendants are owners in possession of the suit land. The suit was also contested on merits on the same lines with assertion that answering defendants have every right to take the possession of the suit land from the plaintiffs and all other allegation mentioned in the plaint were also denied with a prayer to dismiss the suit with costs.” On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues:- “(1)Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the property in dispute? OPP (2)Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? R.S.A.No. 2641 of 2009 (O&M) {5} OPD (3)Whether the plaintiffs are in illegal possession of suit property and defendants are adopting process of law forgetting possession from plaintiffs? OPD (4)Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Plaintiffs by way of the present suit had sought declaration that they be declared owners of the suit property. In order to substantiate their case, plaintiff No. 3 – Gurpreet Singh appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and deposed as per the contents of the plaint. PW-2, Ram Chander corroborated the statement of PW-1. Defendants on the other hand examined DW-1 Mohan Lal and he deposed that as per notification dated 13.9.1996, Municipal Council, Khanna had become owner of the property in dispute. Admittedly, plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property. In jamabandi Ex. P-2, Municipal Council Khanna is recorded as owner of the property in dispute. Although the presumption of truth is attached to the entries in the jamabandi but the said entries are rebuttable. Additional Director, Consolidation, Punjab, vide order dated 10.4.1996 ( Ex. P-1) declared the plaintiffs to be owners of Khasra No. 66, 13/15/4. Gram Panchayat was declared owner of Khasra No. 17/10 min (2-0). Admittedly against the said order no appeal had been filed. Although in view of the notifications dated 13.9.1996 and 23.10.1998, limits of Khanna were extended, but so far as the suit property is concerned, plaintiff had already been declared owner of the same vide order Ex. P-1 and the said order had R.S.A.No. 2641 of 2009 (O&M) {6} attained finality. In these circumstances, both the courts below had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 16, 2009 PARAMJIT