Regular Second Appeal No. 3074 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3074 of 2008. (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.4.2009 *** State of Punjab & Anr. .. Appellants VS. Gurdial Kaur & ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. B.S. Sra, DAG Punjab. Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate for the respondents. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 60 days in filing the appeal stands condoned. The appellants have come up in this regular second appeal to lay challenge to the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below by dint of which the plaintiffs have held owners in possession of the land measuring 2 kanals 16 marlas and the revenue entries from the year 1989-90 onwards in favour of State Government have been ordered to be corrected by setting aside the rapat No.30 dated 21.9.1989, forming the basis of said change. The appellants have also been restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that no question of law arises for determination in the instant appeal. It emerges out from the records that the plaintiffs by adducing over- whelming evidence on record proved that the land measuring 52 kanals 12 marlas was allotted to Sadhu Ram (predecessor-in-interest of respondents who initially filed the suit) and mutation to that effect was also entered in Regular Second Appeal No. 3074 of 2008 2 the year 1981. The plaintiff remained in possession thereof as owner uptill 1989 when on the basis of rapat No.30 dated 21.9.1989 there was change in the revenue record in respect of land measuring 2 kanals 16 marlas, out of the total land of 52 kanals 12 marlas and the same was mutated in favour of State Government vide mutation No.1435. Both the Courts below condemned the said entry in favour of the State Government as prior to affecting such change, the plaintiff-the original owner was not given opportunity of any hearing. The plea of the appellants that the land measuring 2 kanals 16 marlas was declared surplus was not substantiated by them since it was not proved on record as to whether the plaintiff was having land more than the permissible one, taking the suit land belonging to him to the surplus pool. Further the stand of appellants of their being in possession of the suit land after the said change was doubted by the Courts below. The revenue record reflects that crops are sown on the suit land, but nothing was produced by the appellants to show that to whom the proceeds from the sale of such crop was deposited, being Government property. Rather drawing the presumption of continuity of possession of the plaintiff, it has been held that the plaintiffs are still in possession of the suit land and the change in the revenue record showing the ownership and possession of the State Government is not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs. It has also come on record that prayer of the plaintiff Sadhu Ram for correction in the revenue record was turned by the competent authority on 17.3.2000 and the suit was filed on 28.11.2002, leading to the conclusion that the suit was well within limitation. Although it has been contended that the jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred in view of the provisions contained in Section 21 of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, but in view of the fact that there was over- stepping of powers by the competent authority in incorporating change of revenue record in favour of the State Government by not adhering to the principles of natural justice, it has rightly been held that there is no bar to the powers of civil court and while observing so reliance has also been placed on the cases of Santa Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1972 Revenue Law Reporter 249 and Dhruv Green Fields Ltd. Vs. Hukam Singh & Ors. 2002(3) Civil Court Cases 470(SC). In view of the above, there is no room to interfere in the Regular Second Appeal No. 3074 of 2008 3 concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. The appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE April 23,2009 Jiten