RSA No. 1480 of 2006(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: January 07 , 2010 1. RSA No. 1480 of 2006(O&M) Gram Panchayat Dehlwas ...... Appellant Versus Raj Kumar ...... Respondent 2. RSA No.3390 of 2006(O&M) Gram Panchayat Dehlwas ...... Appellant Versus Raj Kumar ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Jai Vir Yadav , Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This order shall dispose of RSA No.3390 of 2006 which has been filed by the Gram Panchayat through one of its Panches as also RSA No.1480 of 2006 which has been filed by the same Gram Panchayat albeit through the BDPO. Since they both arise out of the common judgment, they RSA No. 1480 of 2006(O&M) 2 are being disposed of together by this common order. The facts are being taken from RSA No.3390 of 2006. The respondent had filed the present suit claiming that earlier his father Badlu had obtained a decree from the Court of Assistant Collector 1st Grade under the provisions of the Punjab Village and Common Lands Act whereby a declaration had been issued that said Badlu was owner in possession of the land in dispute and further that the land in dispute was not part of Shamilat deh and that the appellant Gram Panchayat had no right, title or interest in the said land and further that the said judgement and decree had become final. This seminal fact has not been disputed. The following questions have been proposed in RSA No.3390 of 2006:- a) Whether the order passed by learned additional District Judge, Rewari is liable to be set aside while not considering the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the Appellant and giving undue weightage to the evidence of the same nature produced by the respondent? b) Whether the order passed by learned additional District Judge, Reweari is liable to be set aside while not considering the fact that the land belongs to the appellant, it being a grazing ground and thus is owner of the land in dispute? c) Whether the order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rewari is liable to beset aside while not considering the fact that the suit was hopelessly time-barred? d) Whether the order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rewari is liable to beset aside while not considering the fact that the land in dispute is Shamlat Deh and in view of the provisions of Section 13 of the Village Common Lands act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was expressly barred? e) Whether the order passed by learned additional District Judge, Rewari is liable to be set aside being illegal and not RSA No. 1480 of 2006(O&M) 3 based upon justice, equity and fair-play? The following questions of law have been proposed in RSA No. 1480 of 2006:- i) Whether the respondent/plaintiff can take the benefit of entries in Khasra Girdawari in favour of Badlu even after his death, the entries being wrong and void? ii)Whether the suit filed in the year 1992 although respondent- Badlu had died in the year 1983, is time barred? iii)Whether the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff is liable to be dismissed on account of non-joining of necessary parties? It would be seen that the questions posed are partly overlapping. As regards the question/s of law with regard to the title of the father of the respondent, no arguments have been raised by learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel has only argued that the finding of the learned Lower Appellate Court that the respondent was in possession of the land in dispute was erroneous. In the first place finding regarding possession is a pure finding of fact. Second and more important, the learned Lower Appellate Court has rightly considered that once the father of the respondent was admittedly in possession of the land in dispute, it was incumbent upon the appellant to show how and in what circumstances his legal representatives were divested of possession and not vice versa. In this view of the matter this question too has to be answered against the appellant. As regards the question of limitation, in my opinion, the same does not arise. Once the respondent is held to be owner in possession of land in dispute on the basis of inheritance, it cannot be said that he derives title only from the judgment and decree (Ex.PA) in favour of his father . Thus the suit cannot be held to be outside limitation. RSA No. 1480 of 2006(O&M) 4 In the circumstances both the appeals are dismissed. Since the main appeals have been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. A copy of this order be placed on the file of the connected case. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE January 07, 2010 sunita