KHUSHAL SINGH Vs. GURDIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants' second appeal against whom the suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been decreed by both the Courts below.

(2.) The plaintiff brought the suit for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that they were the owners in possession of the houses, in dispute, and that the orders of the Tahsildar, Dasuya, dated August 29, 1972 and September 22, 1983, were wrong, invalid, ineffective and void. According to them the land under the houses in dispute, originally belonged to Ujagar Singh from whom they had purchases the same vide sale deed dated 7, 1964 and January 15, 1965, and were in possession of the same since that date. They had constructed their houses thereon and were residing there. Previously, the suit land before Khasra No. 1018. The defendants also purchased portions of the land from the said Khasra No. and constructed their houses thereon. The defendants disputed that 2 Marlas of land was encroached upon by Gurdip Singh, plaintiff-respondent. They were in possession of only 2 kanals 2 marlas of land purchased by them. Because the land bore one Khasra No., the defendants taking advantage of the same, got it partitioned from the Tahsildar, Dasuya on October 29, 1974. The said orders were without jurisdiction as the revenue authorities had no jurisdiction to partition the land which was under the buildings. The suit was contested inter alia on the ground that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and that the orders passed by the Tahsildar were legal. The suit land was agricultural land in which a tubewell had been installed for irrigation purposes. Only a few kanals of the suit land was under abadi while the remaining agricultural land was under cultivation of the plaintiffs. The trial Court found that the civil Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit and that the suit property was not agricultural land as it had been converted from agricultural land to residential plots and the plaintiffs had constructed their houses on the respective portions of Khasra No. 1018 purchased by them. It was also held that the Revenue Officer was not entitled to partition the same as it had ceased to be agricultural land. The plaintiffs were held to be the owners in possession of the suit property. Consequently, the plaintiffs' suit was decreed. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the said finding of the trial Court and, thus, maintained the decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants contended that simply because the plaintiffs had constructed houses over a part of the land, it did not cease to be agricultural land and, therefore, the revenue authorities had the jurisdiction to partition the same. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Sucha Singh v. Balbir Singh, 1964 PunLJ 160. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents submitted that though in the earlier jamabandi Khasra No. 1018 was shown to be barani, yet it was ghair mumkin abadi at the spot and since the buildings had been constructed thereon, the revenue authorities had no jurisdiction to partition the same. The defendants could approach the civil Court to seek partition, if any. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Vir Bhan v. Sham Singh,1944 PunLR 303.