RSA No. 3497 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3497 of 2009 Date of Decision: January 19,2011 Ved Ashram Trust,Ellenabad ...........Appellant Versus Municipal Committee Ellenabad ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Sandeep Singal, Advocate for the Appellant. ** Sabina, J. Plaintiff-Trust filed a suit for declaration that the land measuring 8 marlas bearing khasra No. 776/2 was owned and possessed by the plaintiff. In the revenue record, khasra number in dispute has been wrongly shown to be owned and possessed by the defendant. Fateh Chand was owner in possession of khasra No. 1269/877 and 6 biswas of land bearing khasra No. 1267/877. Adjoining the said land, there was a gair mumkin road measuring 6 biswas comprised in khasra No. 1268/877. Fateh Chand sold 12 biswas of land bearing khasra No. 1267/877 to Brahma Nand and Murli Dhan. Mutation in this regard was sanctioned in May,1961. During consolidation proceedings, Brahma Nand and Murli Dhan were allotted 2 kanals 6 marals of land bearing khasra No. 779 in lieu of khasra RSA No. 3497 of 2009 2 no. 1269/877. As regards 6 biswas of land bearing khasra No.1267/877, the same was allotted to the person on the other side of the road bearing khasra No.1268/877. Plaintiff was in possession of khasra no. 779 which abutted the road. As per the jamabandi for the year 1962-63, land measuring 6 kanals 10 marlas bearing khasra No. 777/1 was owned and possessed by Shamlat Patti Mahajan and mutation in favour of the Gram Panchayat was sanctioned on 6.6.1966. Later on, the said fact was duly reflected in the revenue record. The Assistant Collector II Grade Ellenabad,on the basis of jamabandi for the year 1972-73, sanctioned the mutation in favour of Gram Panchayat. However, later on, land measuring 6 kanals 10 marlas which was part of khasra No. 777/1 had become part of khasra no. 776/2. The Municipal Committee Ellenabad in place of Gram Panchayat Ellenabad, had come into existence. The defendant was threatening to take forcible possession of 8 marlas of land from the plaintiff on which the construction has been raised. Hence, the suit for declaration was filed by the plaintiff. Defendant in its written statement averred that Champa Lal, father of Fateh Chand was nephew of Brahma Nand. Fateh Chand was not owner of khasra No. 1269/877 and khasra No. 1267/877. The fact that the road had been carved out in khasra No. 1268/877 was admitted. It was denied that Fateh Chand had sold land to Brahma Nand and Murli Dhan or that the said vendors had been allotted khasra No. 779 during consolidation. The land bearing khasra No. 779 was barren and had been gifted by Brahma Nand and Murli Dhan to Sarvodhya Ashram. A dharmshala, a school, a library and a water hut had been constructed in khasra No. 779 and an approach has been created out of khasra No. 779 for the last 20 years. RSA No. 3497 of 2009 3 Khasra No. 779 was under the possession of the Ashram. Brahma Nand had filed a civil suit against Rajender Kumar, a trustee of Ashram qua khasra No. 779 bearing No. 1392-C of 1988 and the same was dismissed by the Sub Judge Ist Class, Sirsa vide judgment and decree dated 13.12.1993. The school constructed by the Ashram had been rented out to Ram Kumar. Eviction petition was filed by the Ashram against Ram Kumar was allowed and possession of the School was delivered to the Ashram. Plaintiff-Trust was registered on 3.3.1989 and had no concern with khasra No. 779. The land bearing khasra No. 777/1 was owned by Gram Panchayat and was lying vacant. Some portion of the said khasra number had been occupied by Ramji Lal, Sahi Ram etc. and defendant would take appropriate steps to get the illegal encroachment removed. It was denied that mutation No. 2955 out of khasra No. 776 has been sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat in lieu of khasra No. 777/1. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court;- “1.Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the land measuring 0 kanal 8 marlas comprised in sq.no.776/2 as alleged, if so to what effect?OPP 2.Whether the mutation No. 2955 sanctioned on 31.1.1979 showing the Gram Panchayat now superseded by Municipal committee as owner in possession of the suit land are wrong, against law and facts, null and void, ineffective, qua the rights of the plaintiff as alleged?OPP 3.Whether the plaintiff is a non-existent body, if so to what effect ?OPD RSA No. 3497 of 2009 4 4.Whether the suit of the plaintiff is false frivolous and liable to be dismissed?OPD 5.Relief” The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 13.3.2006. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiff-Trust preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court Sirsa vide judgment and decree dated 31.1.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff -Trust. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. The case of the plaintiff was that he was owner in possession of 8 marlas of land bearing khasra No. 776/2 which was, in fact, part of khasra No. 779. In support of his case, plaintiff proved on record, copies of jamabandies to the effect that, initially, Brahma Nand and Murli Dhan were owner in possession of the land to the extent of one half share each in the old khasra number. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that the plaintiff had failed to establish that he was owner in possession of the suit land. Plaintiff had failed to prove on record any document establishing his ownership qua khasra No.779. The name of the plaintiff, admittedly, does not figure in the revenue record in the claim of ownership. The plaintiff had further failed to establish that the suit property formed part of khasra No. 779. As per the jamabandi for the year 1972-73, Gram Panchayat was owner of khasra No. 777/1 measuring 6 kanals 10 marlas which was carved out during consolidation proceedings. Thereafter, khasra No. 777/1 was changed to khasra no. 776/2 and mutation in this regard was sanctioned. RSA No. 3497 of 2009 5 Since the plaintiff had failed to establish that he had any connection with khasra No.771/1 or khasra No. 776/2, the Courts below rightly held that the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge January 19, 2011 arya