RSA No.4673 of 2001 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4673 of 2001 (O&M) Date of decision: 8.9.2008 Richhpal Singh and others …… Appellants Versus Gram Panchayat Meerpur and others …….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Ms. Kamalpreet Kaur, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. S.K.Beniwal, Advocate for the respondents. * * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J . CM No.9647-C of 2001 For the reasons mentioned in the application delay of 161 days in filing the appeal is condoned. RSA No.4673 of 2001 1. The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a decree for declaration to the effect that they have become owners in possession of land measuring 14 kanals 4 marlas comprised in Khasra No.237min East (4-0), 237min West (10-4) by way of an exchange with defendant whom they have given their land measuring 11 kanals 7 marlas comprised in Sq.No.8 Killa No.17min centre (5-9), 23minEast(1-4), 24min West (0-5), Sq. No.17 Killa No.3 min centre (4-9) situated in village Mirpur, Tehsil and District Sirsa (hereinafter referred to as the land in dispute) with a consequential relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from dispossessing them from the suit land. 2. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit land belongs to the Mushtarka Malkan and was allotted Khasra No.237 at the time of RSA No.4673 of 2001 (O&M) 2 consolidation. A bandh was constructed through Sq.No.8 Killa Nos.17, 23, 24 and Sq.No.17 Killa No.3 situated in village Mirpur. Land measuring 11 kanals 7 marlas comprised in Sq.No.8, Killa No.17 min centre (5-9), 23minEast(1-4), 24min West (0-5), Sq. No.17 Killa No.3 min centre (4-9) belonging to the plaintiffs came under this bandh and in lieu of this land, District Administration and the village Panchayat agreed to exchange the suit land with the plaintiffs. It was agreed that the plaintiffs would become owners of the suit land in exchange of the aforesaid land and in consequence thereof possession of the suit land was handed over to the plaintiffs but no compensation was paid to them for their land on account of this exchange. The plaintiffs have claimed ownership and possession of the suit land. It has been further stated that the defendant-Gram Panchayat is now claiming its right over the suit land and therefore, the Gram Panchayat be restrained from doing so as the plaintiffs have become the owners in possession of the suit land. 3. The defendant-Gram Panchayat has contested the suit by filing written statement admitting that the suit land was initially used as a bank for Ghaghar River but after the construction of the new bandh, the land of the plaintiffs which was Mushtarka Malkan had come under the management of the Gram Panchayat. The plaintiffs were in unauthorized and illegal possession of the same. The land taken from the plaintiffs was acquired as per law by the Government and due compensation was given to the plaintiffs. It was only thereafter that the bandh had been constructed on the land of the plaintiffs. The plea raised by the plaintiffs in their plaint were absolutely false as the defendant-Gram Panchayat had no concern with the new bandh which has been constructed by the Government. No exchange had taken place between the plaintiffs and the defendant-Gram Panchayat. Since the plaintiffs were in unauthorized and illegal possession RSA No.4673 of 2001 (O&M) 3 of the suit land and ejectment application had been instituted before the A.C.1st Grade in which the plaintiffs had failed to establish their possession as owners. The plaintiffs had filed the present suit only in order to save themselves from ejectment proceedings. It was therefore, prayed that the suit of the plaintiffs be dismissed as they have no cause of action to file the same. 4. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 8.12.1999 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs holding that there is no evidence in support of this claim put forth by the plaintiffs as they have failed to lead any cogent and documentary evidence in order to prove that there had ever been any exchange of the suit land with the land belonging to the plaintiffs. 5. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiffs filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Sirsa vide impugned judgment and decree dated 3.3.2001. The relevant part of the impugned judgment of the Lower Appellate Court is reproduced hereunder:- “The revenue record i.e. copy of Jamabandi for the years 1989-90 Ex.P-6 do not support the possession of the appellants over the suit land. The appellants are nowhere recorded to be the owner of the suit land and even in the latest Khasra Girdawari Ex.P-7 they are not recorded to be in possession of the suit land. The appellants have miserably failed to prove their ownership as well as possession over the suit land. They have failed to show that any exchange of the land between the parties ever took place. The appellants cannot be declared owners of the suit land merely on RSA No.4673 of 2001 (O&M) 4 the basis of assumptions. The learned lower court has given the correct findings under all the issues and the same stand affirmed.” 6. Feelings aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the Courts below, the plaintiffs have filed the present appeal in this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the Courts below have wrongly decided issue No.3 as exchange of the land was impliedly admitted by the Gram Panchayat in its written statement where it has been specifically admitted that earlier Bandh was on the suit land i.e. Khasra No.237 but new regular Bandh has been constructed on the land of the plaintiffs. Counsel for the appellants has further argued that the case of the plaintiff-appellants is that they did not claim compensation for their land as the Gram Panchayat and District Administration had given them possession of the suit land in lieu thereof by exchange and therefore, the suit of the appellants should have been decreed. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the findings of the Courts below. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. It is the specific case of the Gram Panchayat that there was no agreement between the Gram Panchayat and the plaintiffs for exchange of land and therefore, the land was never exchanged. It is the further case of the Gram Panchayat that the Bandh was constructed by the Government and it was for the Government to pay the compensation to the appellants for the alleged acquired land in accordance with law and moreover, the Gram Panchayat has taken a specific stand that compensation was paid to the plaintiffs. The Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the appellants are not recorded as owners of the suit land and they RSA No.4673 of 2001 (O&M) 5 have failed miserably to prove their ownership as well as possession over the suit land. They have also failed to show that any exchange of the land between the parties took place. 10. In view of the aforesaid finding of fact recorded by the Courts below, there is no merit in the instant appeal. No substantial question of law arises for the determination of this Court. 11. Dismissed. September 8, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE