GRAM PANCHAYAT TEEKRI KHERA Vs. SHAH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 02.04.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in favour of the respondents. The facts relevant for disposal of the present appeal are that Mohd. Shah and others respondents filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction on the premise that they have acquired occupancy rights and became proprietors by virtue of Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act 1952 (in short "Act 1952"). The respondents and their predecessors in interest had been in cultivating possession as tenants of agriculture land comprising khewat No. 263, khatoni No. 308, rect. No. 33, killa No. 3(6 -19), 4(6 -19), 5(6 -19), 6(8 -0), 7/1(4 -2), 7/2(1 -15), 8/1(4 -10), 14(7 -10), 15(7 -3), 16(1 -10), 17(1 -17) total measuring 57 kanals situated at village Teekri Khera, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad, since the inception of village Teekri Khera. Before 1955 -56, the land was recorded in the ownership of Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Kabja Araji Milkiyat Misal Bandobast 39 -40 and predecessors of the respondents namely Munshi @ Mawasi and Darabi sons of Molabux were recorded in possession to the extent of half share, Hasan Khan, Imam Saha, Guljar Saha sons of Rojdar to the extent of remaining half share as Bila Lagan Bawaja Khidmad Chopal, Kabristan, Takiya etc. In the year 1955 -56, consolidation was effected in the village and the suit land was recorded to be the ownership of Panchayat Deh in place of Shamlat Deh. However, the aforesaid predecessors in interest of the respondents continued to be recorded in possession of the suit land. Munshi and Darabi have died and succeeded by respondents No. 1 & 2. Hasan Khan, Imam Shah and Guljar Shah have also died and succeeded by respondents No. 3 & 4 and Yameen Khan. The respondents have acquired occupancy rights in the suit land and became its owners under the Punjab Tenancy Act. There was an implied agreement between the parties or their predecessors in interest not to eject them from the suit land.

(2.) THE appellant filed written statement challenging maintainability of the suit and the respondents having not approached the Court with clean hands. It has controverted the averment set up in the plaint and denied the respondents having become the owners of the land in dispute with the plea that possession of the respondents is unauthorised under Rule 19 of the Punjab Village Common Land Rules, 1964 as the land was never given to them or their forefathers on lease, grant, gift or allotment. The suit land was lying vacant and used as Charagah till recently and the respondents have occupied the suit land illegally. The entries in the revenue record regarding possession of the respondents are incorrect. It has further challenged the jurisdiction of the civil court being barred under Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Land Act 1961. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court: - -

(3.) WHETHER plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD