RSA No. 4251 of 2006 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … RSA No. 4251 of 2006 Date of decision: October 24,2008 Jagjit Singh ..Appellant. Versus Notified Area Committee(Nagar Panchayat) Sahnewal and another ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. S.D.Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Ms.Bindu Goel, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.G.S.Sandhawalia, Advocate for the respondents. ... Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby suit for declaration, that the plaintiff is the owner in possession of land in dispute and the entries relating to this land in the revenue record are incorrect, erroneous, illegal, void ab initio and are liable to be corrected in the name of plaintiff, has been dismissed. As per the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land measuring 15 marlas out of Khasra No.243 depicted as red in the accompanied plaint as fully detailed and described in the head note of the plaint. The suit land was allotted to the plaintiff vide order dated 16.12.1992 passed by the District Development and Panchayat Officer-cum- Collector Ludhiana for a sum of Rs.15,000/- which was deposited vide receipt No.98 dated 17.2.1993 and the ownership right of the suit land were given to the plaintiff. Thus since 17.2.1993, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. In April 1995, the defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land illegally and forcibly. The plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction which was decreed on 9.8.1997 and the defendants were permanently restrained from RSA No. 4251 of 2006 2 dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land. The plaintiff approached the different revenue authorities for correcting his name in the revenue record upon the basis of allotment order dated 16.12.1992 and the decree dated 9.8.1997 passed by the Civil Court in his favour but the revenue officials have refused to make the necessary correction. In spite of repeated requests the revenue record has not been corrected. Prior to the constitution of defendant No.1, there was a Gram Panchayat in Sahnewal. The revenue record is still in the name of Gram Panchayat and the same requires necessary amendment because it has created cloud on the rights of the plaintiff over the suit land. The plaintiff is in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the same. Hence this suit. The respondents contested the suit by taking various preliminary objections. Upon merits, it was denied that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. It was also denied that the suit land was allotted to the plaintiff vide order dated 16.12.1992. The deposit of a sum of Rs.15,000/- by the plaintiff was also denied. It was stated that the defendants are owners in possession of the suit land falling in Khasra No.243, as the plaintiff never remained in possession of the suit land, so the question to dispossess him does not arise. It was also stated that defendants were not party to the decree dated 9.8.1997, and the same is not binding upon them in any manner. The continuous and uninterrupted possession of the plaintiff was also denied. It was further stated in the written statement that the revenue record is corrected and the Gram Panchayat, Sahnewal has merged into Nagar Panchayat, Sahnewal legally and validly. It is also stated that the defendant preferred CWP No. 617 of 1997 in this Court which was accepted and the matter was remanded to the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, at Mohali and the proceedings regarding consolidation were pending before the said court. The plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land, therefore, suit for declaration is not maintainable. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed with costs. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of this case, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide RSA No. 4251 of 2006 3 impugned judgment and decree dated 30.8.2005. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decrees of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide impugned judgment and decree dated 29.7.2006. While dismissing the appeal, the lower Appellate Court held that the appellants not been able to prove that they are owners of the land. Still not satisfied, the plaintiffs have filed the instant appeal challenging the impugned judgment and decrees of the courts below. Shri S.D. Sharma, learned senior counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that it has been established on record that the Collector gave ownership rights to the appellant and he deposited the price of the land as per the direction and decision of the Collector. No appeal challenging the judgment of the Collector was filed by the Gram Panchayat and the Gram Panchayat willingly accepted the decision of the Collector. Thus the appellant was entitled to the declaration prayed by him. It is further argued by the counsel for the appellant that the courts below have misread the order dated 16.12.1992 passed by the Collector which clearly proves that the ownership rights were given to the appellant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the findings of the courts below and has argued that both the courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that there is no documentary evidence on the file to prove that the appellant has become owner of the suit land which may entitle him to make the declaration prayed for by him. Therefor the appeal is liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The courts below have recorded a finding of fact that the order of District Development and Panchayat Officer-cum-Collector Ludhiana dated 16.12.1992 (Ex.P2) has no where given ownership rights in favour of the plaintiff and the amount of Rs.1000/- per marla was got deposited by the District Development and Panchayat Officer-cum-Collector only to regularize the possession of the RSA No. 4251 of 2006 4 appellant who was earlier in unlawful possession of the land of the Gram Panchayat. It has been also found that vide judgment and decree dated 9.8.1997, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana found possession of the appellant over the suit land and passed a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property illegally and forcibly, otherwise than in due course of law. Thus even vide this Civil Court decree dated 9.8.1997, the appellant has not been declared as owner of the suit property. The learned counsel for the appellant was unable to challenge the aforesaid findings of fact recorded by the courts below. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in the appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. October 24, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE