RSA No.1563 of 2010 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.4715-C of 2010 & RSA No.1563 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 7.11.2011 Avtar Singh & Ors. ...Appellants Vs. Gurdial Singh (deceased) through L.Rs. & Anr. .....Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest. --- Present: Mr.K.S.Boparai, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Subhash Aggarwal, Advocate, for the respondents. --- A.N.Jindal, J. Suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by Avtar Singh, Harbans Singh and Jagtar Singh was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana on 22.04.2006 against which they preferred the appeal which also met the same fate. RSA No.1563 of 2010 2 Facts in nutshell are that Gurdial Singh had filed an application under section 42 of the East Punjab (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, titled as Gurdial Singh Vs. Gurdial Singh & Anr., which was accepted by Additional Director, Consolidation and Holding, Punjab, Jalandhar vide order 5.4.1968, whereby 18 marlas out of suit land was allotted to Gurdial Singh, grand-father of the plaintiffs. However, the said order was not implemented in revenue record. Thus, they have claimed that the entries in the revenue record are not correct and they are the owners of the said 18 marlas of land out of 2 kanals 11 marlas, comprised of Khata No.148/156, Khasra No.39//5/1 (2-11) situated at village Jangpur, Hadbast No.423, Tehsil & District Ludhiana. The defendants contested the suit. While denying all the allegations. They took certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest in suit land. Neither the Consolidation Authorities could make any such correction nor the civil court has jurisdiction to try the present suit and the suit is barred by limitation. On merits, it was submitted that neither Gurdial Singh was the owner of the suit land nor he or the plaintiffs moved any such application for implementing the said order. The defendants are owners in possession of the suit property continuously, openly and to the knowledge of the plaintiffs. Gurdial Singh did not execute any Will in favour of the plaintiffs. On the pleadings of the parties trial court framed the RSA No.1563 of 2010 3 following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are joint owners in possession over the suit land?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration as prayed for?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for ?OPP 4. Whether the present suit is not maintainable? OPD 5. Whether the jurisdiction of this court to try the suit is barred? OPD 6. Whether the present suit is barred by limitation. 7. Relief. Having considered the evidence led by both the parties, the view could not find favour with the plaintiffs. Hence they are before this court. Heard, the plaintiffs have mainly stressed their claim on the basis of order dated 5.04.1968 passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation and Holding, Punjab, Jalandhar, vide which they claim that 18 marlas of the land was allotted to Gurdial Singh. The contention sans merit. The said order never saw the light of the day till 30.3.1999 i.e. since 5.04.1968 till the filing of the suit. The said order was never presented for implementation before the revenue authorities. No such application has been proved on record as allegedly moved by Gurdial Singh for implementing the orders. The plaintiffs claim themselves to have inherited the property of RSA No.1563 of 2010 4 Gurdial Singh on the basis of the Will, however, they have failed to prove any such Will according to law. Even otherwise, they being the grand-sons of Gurdial Singh cannot be his natural heirs. Copy of order dated 5.4.1968 relied upon, has not been accepted by the Revenue Authorities. The authorities have refused to sanction the mutation on the basis of alleged order. The order was passed way back on 5.04.1968 which was never acted upon. It is still a mystery that such order was passed by the court of competent jurisdiction with notice to the defendants. In any case, the order having not been implemented for 31 years, suit cannot be said to be within time particularly when they never came in possession of the said 18 marlas of land nor they applied for partition of the suit property on the basis of the said order. They have been seeing defendants while raising construction over the said land but did not raise any objection. Though the order was passed on 5.4.1968, copy of the order sought to be produced was obtained by the plaintiffs on 16.3.1979. No steps were taken by the plaintiffs in order to implement these orders even thereafter. It may further be observed that according to the order, the land measuring 18 marlas was allotted to the plaintiffs out of Khasra No.39//5/1 (2-11), but the plaintiffs never filed a suit for partition claiming themselves to be the owners to the extent of that share in the suit land. Since the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property, therefore, the present suit for mere declaration is not maintainable without any consequential relief. RSA No.1563 of 2010 5 No substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination. Dismissed. (A.N.Jindal) 7.11.2011 Judge rp