RSA No. 2578 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2578 of 2007 Date of Decision: March 26 , 2010 Mohan Lal ...... Appellant Versus Haryana State and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the appellant Mr.Paramjeet Batta, Addl. AG, Haryana. **** 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 appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Lower Appellate Court reversing that of the trial Court and thereby dismissing the suit of the appellant for declaration of his claim for the land in dispute and for injunction restraining the respondent-State of Haryana from interfering in the possession of the land. It is not disputed that the land in dispute is Shamlat land which was notified under the Indian Forest Act for a period of 25 years from 1950 to 1975. At that time a complaint was lodged against the appellant for illegally encroaching upon the land in dispute but the appellant was acquitted. Thereafter, since the period of the notification also expired, on RSA No. 2578 of 2007 2 the basis of the judgment of the criminal Court, the appellant was recorded in the possession of the land in dispute. The learned Lower Appellate Court found that the appellant was able to show how he had entered in possession of the land in dispute. The following questions have been proposed:- (i)Whether the respondent can claim any right or interest in the suit land after the expiry of the time period mentioned in the notification dated 6.4.1973? (ii)Whether after the expiry of the period mentioned in the notification the land would automatically revert back to the proprietors? (iii)Whether the entries recorded in the revenue record in favour of the respondents are wrong and illegal after the expiry of the notification period? (iv)Whether the finding recorded by the learned Lower Appellate Court are perverse and based upon no evidence? (v)Whether the learned Lower Appellate Court has misread the evidence led by the parties? Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that as per entry in the Jamabandi for the year 1947 the land in dispute was recorded in the ownership of Patti Maha Singh. He further argues that appellant is a member of Patti Maha Singh and has share in the property. It is further argued that once the notification came to an end, the land would revert back to the original owner and since the appellant was admittedly the proprietor of the said Patti, it would revert back to him also. He has further argued that the notification which was issued in any case was not of vesting of ownership but only restrictive notification in so much as certain limitations were placed on the user of the land in dispute. He further argues that even a witness of the respondents states that no mutation was entered in favour of RSA No. 2578 of 2007 3 the respondent-State. In my opinion even if the arguments of learned counsel are to be accepted yet the suit of the appellant has to fail. It would be seen that some reference is made to the ownership of Patti Maha Singh in the Jamabandi for the year 1946-47. Thereafter there is no entry in the revenue record about the ownership of Patti Maha Singh. The appellant has not been able to link up the Jamabandi with the numbers mentioned in the plaint. No record has been produced to show the link of the present numbers with the numbers mentioned in the Jamabandi for the year 1946- 47. Consequently it cannot be held that the appellant has become owner in possession. However, even the respondent-State of Haryana could not be held to be the owner of the land in dispute and it is always open to the proprietors of Patti Maha Singh to prove that the land in dispute was owned by them. Learned Addl. Advocate General has candidly stated that the dismissal of the suit of the appellant was in the present facts and circumstances of the case and it cannot be said that the respondent-State is the owner of the land and that this question can be decided in appropriate proceedings. Consequently the questions proposed do not arise in this appeal and the same is dismissed with the above clarification. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE March 26 , 2010 sunita