LAJJA RAM Vs. RATI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Shubham Seth, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also, heard Mr. Sujit Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The present appeals have been preferred challenging the judgement and order dtd. 12/8/2009 in RSAs No. 4041/2007 & 2552/2008, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Under the impugned order, the High Court upheld the decision dtd. 15/10/2007 of the Additional District Judge, Faridabad ('First Appellate Court'), reversing the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Palwal ('Trial Court') order dtd. 28/2/2003, and thereby, decreed the Respondents' suit and declared Narain Dass (Defendant No. 1/Dfdt. 1) as only a bhondedar but not the owner of the shamlatdeh land (land reserved & used for common purpose in villages). It was held that the Dfdt. No. 1 had been granted limited possessory rights, to the shamlatdeh land, in lieu of service rendered to the village temple and when he, as the bhondedar, ceased to render such service, the land would automatically revert back to the common village pool.

(3.) In the year 1982, Narain Dass (Dfdt. No. 1) initiated an earlier proceeding for declaration and occupancy rights, before Asst. Collector (Grade-I), Faridabad against the Gram Panchayat, Palwal. The Asst. Collector while disposing the said proceeding observed in the order dtd. 6/3/1986 that Narain Dass was entitled to hereditary rights, under Ss. 5 & 8 of the Punjab Mujara Act, 1887 (also referred to as the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887) and the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953. This arises from the longstanding service of Narain Dass' ancestors as mujaras (tenants) relating to the shamlatdeh land, for over 60 years. Additionally, it was held that the land did not vest in the Gram Panchayat.