BIRDA RAM Vs. ATRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGRICULTURAL land bearing rectangle No. 31, killa No. 2 (8-0 ). and rectangle No. 31, killa No. 9 (8-0) was a part of shamlat Mansha Patti in the area of village Khol, Tehsil and District Rewari. Proprietors of the village had a share in said shamlat Patti Hasab Rasad Zare Khewat. Plaintiff being proprietor of the village was in cultivating possession of killa Nos. 31/2 and 31/9 of the above said land for the last 25 years. He constructed a Chapper on the said land. Defendants No. 9 and 10 eluded with the Revenue Patwari and got this land shown to be under their cultivation in khasra girdawari without any notice having been served upon the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 5 instituted a civil suit on 31. 10. 1985 against the plaintiff and others alleging that he had a path through the said land as also through killa No. 1 and 10/1.

(2.) THAT suit was contested by the plaintiff specifically denying the existence of any such path. Defendant No. 5 made a statement in that suit that he had been given a path by the Director Consolidation and, therefore, the suit was dismissed as withdrawn. On enquiry it came to light that Director Consolidation in case No. 360/84. passed order dated 20. 12. 1985 thereby allotted the path to defendants No. 1 to 8 through the suit land. The plaintiff then filed Civil Suit No. 57 on 11. 3. 1986 for a decree for declaration and permanent injunction challenging the order dated 20. 12. 1985 of the Director Consolidation 'inter-alia' on the ground : that the proprietors who were necessary parties had not been arrayed as such in the suit; that no notice was served upon them before passing that order; that munadi was never effected on 12. 4. 1985; in the village inviting the proprietors to appear before the Director Consolidation on 20. 12. 1985; that consolidation proceedings took place in the village somewhere in the year 1960 and had been completed after sometimes and now after a lapse of 25 years, the Director Consolidation had no jurisdiction to entertain such an application under Section 12 of the Act, it being hopelessly time barred; that during Consolidation proceedings defendants No. 1 to 16 had been allotted a passage towards the northern side of their holdings and the said passage was still in existence; and that on the basis of the impugned order and mutation No. 963, the defendants were adament in carving out a passage through the suit land which was in exclusive possession of the plaintiffs.

(3.) THE suit was contested by the defendants. After the parties led evidence on the issues framed by the trial Court, learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Rewari, vide his judgment and decree dated 5-8-1992 dismissed the suit 6f the plaintiff.