JANG BAHADUR Vs. RAM SARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No.11875-C of 2011: This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 46 days in filing the instant second appeal. In view of the averments made in the application, the application is allowed and delay of 46 days in filing the instant second appeal is condoned. RSA No.4108 of 2011:

(2.) THE plaintiffs/appellants are in second appeal before this Court having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below. Briefly stated, the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration impugning Rapat No.109 dated 30.10.1982 Exhibit P-1 as also the subsequent revenue record changing the possession over the land measuring 69 kanals 8 marlas comprised in khasra No.394 khewat No.855 min/1100 (hereinafter to be referred as the suit land) situated in Village Ujhana, Tehsil Narwana, District Jind. THE plaintiffs claimed themselves to be the residents and members of Pattis Rapar, Kalia, Tarloka and Majri of village Ujhana. It was pleaded that members of the aforementioned Pattis were quite large in number and as such, the suit was being filed in a representative capacity. It was pleaded that the suit land was being used by the Gram Panchayat of village Ujhana for common purposes since a long time. As such, defendants No.1 to 4 have no title or interest over such suit land. THE entries in the revenue record till the year 1977-78 regarding its possession were being reflected as 'Mufide Aam'. Defendants No.1 to 4, it was alleged in connivance with the revenue officials got changed the entries of possession from 'Mufide Aam to 'Makbuja Pattis Rapar, Kalia, Tarloka and Majri in equal shares in the jamabandi for the year 1982-83. Such change was made in pursuance to Rapat No.109 dated 30.10.1982 and the same was challenged in the suit being illegal, null and void. It was pleaded that a notice dated 25.12.2003 under Section 205 of Panchayati Raj Act had been served upon the Gram Panchayat to change such illegal entry but having evoked no response from the Gram Panchayat, as such the suit had been instituted.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate appearing for the appellants at length. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions raised by the learned counsel and having perused the judgments of the trial Court and first Appellate Court in minute detail, I find that the present second appeal is wholly devoid of merit and must fail.