IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.817 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 11.05.2011 Gulab Singh and others …..Appellants versus The State of Haryana and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Dr.Praveen Hans, Advocate for the appellants Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This order will dispose of two appeals bearing LPA Nos.817 and 818 of 2011, involving similar question of law and facts. For facility of reference, facts are being mentioned from LPA No.817 of 2011. This appeal has been filed against an order dated 23.12.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing CWP No.22496 of 2010 filed by the appellants. It is apparent from the records that the appellants filed an application under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) with a prayer that they be declared owners of the land in dispute measuring 2 kanal 4 marla, on the basis of an oral sale dated 25.5.1958 and a registered sale dated 12.9.1997. That application was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 17.6.2008. It was specifically held that the appellants are not owners of the land in LPA No.817 of 2011(O&M) dispute, rather the land belongs to the Gram Panchayat. In the suit filed by the appellants, issue no.1 was framed as under:- “Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the land measuring 2 kanals, 4 marlas? OPP.” The Court gave the following finding on the above said issue:- “The counsel for the appellants while initiating the arguments stated that Miss Flora and Miss Margrate Skinner, daughters and John Skinner son of Col. Ultra Ali Skinner, the proprietors of village Barsi, Tehsil Bawani Khera, orally sold the land in dispute measuring 2 kanals, 4 marlas, situated at village Barsi, to the plaintiffs. The actual possession was handed over to the plaintiffs at the spot. The plaintiffs are using this land as Bara and for cow dung cakes. They have raised the Bitoras and are in possession and using it as owners at the spot. Due to the death of the earlier vendee, Dharampal son of Sh.Chhaju Ram, his legal heirs, Smt.Santra Devi etc. have been impleaded as the parties and the mutations have also been sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had filed a suit bearing No.176 of 2002, dated 28.2.2002, against the defendant, Panchayat and had prayed. The above said Civil Suit was decided on 24.7.2006, by the Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Siwani, Camp at Bhiwani, according to that the Suit of the plaintiffs was partly accepted. The CivilCourt passed the judgment that if there is any dispute with regard to the ownership of the land in dispute, then the proceedings may be taken in this regard in the Court of the Collector, Bhiwani. Therefore, keeping in view the above said facts, the plaintiffs 2 LPA No.817 of 2011(O&M) are the owners of the land in dispute and they have been held as owners in possession of the land in dispute. Therefore, the issue no.1 be decided in favour of the plaintiffs. On behalf of the Panchayat, the Law Officer, Panchayat, while initiating the arguments stated that in the Suit filed by the plaintiffs, there is not any truth. The plaintiffs have mentioned the wrong facts in the plaint. There had been a suit between the Gram Panchayat, Barsi Gujaran and Mrs.Flora Bill etc., in which on 13.6.1980, the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Bhiwani, passed the order in favour of the Gram Panchayat, Barsi. Against that Mrs.Flora Bill filed the appeal in the Court of the Collector, Bhiwani. The Collector, Bhiwani, vide order dated 24.8.1988, dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, against the order of the Collector, Mrs.Flora Bill etc. filed an appeal in the Court of the Commissioner, Hisar. Upon that in the Court of the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar, Gulab Singh as member Panchayat, Barsi and others made the signatures and put the thumb impressions. According to the compromise, the Gram Panchayat, Barsi, was declared as owners in possession. I have heard both the parties in detail and perused the file carefully and have reached to the conclusion that keeping in view the above said facts, the Gram Panchayat is owner in possession of the land in dispute measuring 2 Kanals, 4 marlas and not the plaintiffs. Therefore, the issue no.1 is decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendant.” The appellants remained unsuccessful in appeal and also in revision. 3 LPA No.817 of 2011(O&M) Before the learned Single Judge, it was contention of the appellants that they are the bona fide purchasers, as they had purchased the land by looking into the revenue record, in which, their vendor was shown as owner of the land, in dispute. The said argument was rejected by the learned Single Judge by noting that before registration of the sale deed in favour of the appellants on 12.9.1997, the Gram Panchayat had already been declared owner of the land in dispute vide orders dated 6.11.1981 and 22.3.1993. To reject claim of the appellants, it was observed as under:- “I have heard counsel for the petitioners and find no reason to set aside orders holding that the Gram Panchayat is owner of the land in dispute. The petitioners admittedly, purchased land in dispute after the orders dated 6.11.1981 and 22.3.1983, were passed by the Additional Commissioner, Hisar and the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, respectively holding that this land belongs to the Gram Panchayat. The plea of protection as bonafide purchasers, is not available to the petitioners as revenue entries are no substitutes for documents of title or orders conferring ownership and though presumptive evidence of title, do not by themselves confer title. An inquiry into revenue records is no substitute for detailed inquiry into the title of a vendor. The principles of ostensible ownership and bonafide purchase do not apply to the facts of the present case as it is difficult to accept that the petitioners, who claim to be in occupation of this land since the year 1958 had no knowledge of compromise between the Gram Panchayat and their vendor effected in the year 1981 and 4 LPA No.817 of 2011(O&M) affirmed in the year 1983, fourteen years before the petitioners purchased the land in dispute.” We feel that the orders passed are perfectly justified. There is nothing on record to show that before getting the sale deed registered, from whom the appellants had verified the title of their predecessor in interest. The appellants are the residents of village Barsi Gujran, their vendor was also resident of the same place. In such a small place, it is not presumable that litigation between vendor of the appellants and the Gram Panchayat was not known to the appellants. Furthermore, on perusal of document at page 49 it becomes clear that the mutation of oral sale was rejected vide order dated 14.8.1961. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 11.05.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 5