RSA NO. 206 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 206 of 2011 Date of decision: June 03,2011 Smt. Naraini and others .....Appellants Versus Union of India and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Akshay Kumar Goel, Advocate for the appellants. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that they were owners in possession of land measuring 49 kanals being 980/1691 share out of the land measuring 84 kanals 11 marlas as described in the head note of the plaint. Prior to consolidation, out of khasra No. 354 measuring 47 bighas 6 biswas, land measuring 5 bighas 6 RSA NO. 206 of 2011 2 biswas had been carved out for construction of road. One half of the remaining land was in possession of Sohan Lal as a tenant under the Central Government. Being an old tenant, Sohan Lal was allowed to purchase land measuring 21 bighas 18 biswas on 6.1.1965. The remaining land was sold to other occupants. Thus, the Central Government had relinquished its right qua khasra No. 354. After consolidation, the land measuring 42 bighas bearing khasra No. 354 was converted into the land measuring 84 kanals 11 marlas. The predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs had interest in 49 kanals of land, but while sanctioning mutation dated 13.5.1992, the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff were shown to have only 36 kanals 10 marlas of land instead of 49 kanals. Defendant No.1, in its written statement, denied the contents of the plaint. It was averred that the land measuring 42 bighas bearing khasra No. 354 was in possession of Patori and Sohan Lal in equal shares. The land measuring 20 bighas 11 biswas was sold to Ramji Lal son of Patori on 19.12.1964 and the remaining land measuring 21 bighas 18 biswas was sold to Sohan Lal. vide order dated 17.11.1964. Lateron the sales were confirmed by the competent authority and conveyance deeds were also issued in favour of the vendees but the entries could not be incorporated in the revenue record. After consolidation of the land, the land bearing khasra No. 354 was converted into land measuring 84 kanals 12 marlas by including some other adjoining land. Custodian department also became co-sharer in the suit land to the extent of 277/1692 share in the land measuring 84 kanals 12 marlas. The land belonging to the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs was RSA NO. 206 of 2011 3 converted into 36 kanals 10 marlas and, hence, the mutation had rightly been sanctioned in their favour. Neither the plaintiffs or any other tenant had any other concern with the said 277/1692 share owned by the Custodian Department. The Government had no intention to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff over the land measuring 36 kanals 10 marlas. Defendant No.2 was impleaded as a party during the pendency of the suit and, in his written statement, he averred that the land measuring 84 kanals 12 marlas was owned by the Central Government but was in possession of his mother Patori and Sohan Lal, predecessors-in-interest of plaintiffs in equal shares. His brother Ramji Lal purchased 34 kanals 5 marlas of land vide sale deed dated 12.11.1999, whereas, the predecessors-in-interest of plaintiff purchased 36 kanals 10 marlas of land vide sale deed dated 20.5.1992. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether the mutation no. 4174 entered and sanctioned in the revenue record with regard to land measuring 36 kanals 10 marlas,situated at Loharu, is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs?OPP 2.If issue no.1 is proved, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration and permanent injunction,as prayed for?OPD 3.Whether the plaintiffs have got no locus standi and cause of action to file and maintain the present suit?OPP 4.Whether the suit is barred by limitation?OPD RSA NO. 206 of 2011 4 5.Whether the suit is bad for want of notice U/s 80 CPC?OPD 6. Whether the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit?OPD 7.Relief.” The Additional Civil Judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 4.11.2004. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed by the plaintiff against the said judgment and decree and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 24.7.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. The controversy in the present case relates to the land bearing old Khasra No.354. As per the conveyance deed, land measuring 21 bighas 18 biswas of old khasra No. 354 had been converted into 36 kanals 10 marlas being 730/1692 shares. It has been noticed by the learned trial Court that plaintiff No.2 had affixed his thumb impression in token of acceptance of the said conversion. The conveyance deed was dated 10.7.1991. The impugned mutation was sanctioned in terms of the conveyance deed dated 10.7.1991. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly held that the claim of the plaintiffs qua 49 kanals of land out of the suit property instead of 36 kanals 10 marlas of land was liable to fail. Since the suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration had failed, the relief of permanent injunction could not be granted to the plaintiffs. Moreover, no injunction can be granted against the other co-sharers. RSA NO. 206 of 2011 5 No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge June 03, 2011 arya