SHEO CHAND Vs. MALKHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's second appeal whose suit for declaration has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

(2.) Sheo Chand plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, claiming that he was in cultivating possession of the agricultural land bearing Khasra Nos. 720 min and 721 min of Sham-i-lat Deh and even prior to the preparation of the record of rights in the year 1945-46 this land was under his occupation. According to the plaintiff, the land of Sham-i-lat Deh was recorded in his occupation as an occupancy tenant. With the operation of law, Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting Proprietary) Rights Act, 1953 (briefly the Act), he became owner of that land of Sham-i-lat Deh and during the consolidation operations, he was allotted agricultural land 16 kanals 18 Marlas comprised of Khasra Nos. 172 and 182, as absolute owner in lieu of the land of Sham-i-lat Deh which was held by him as a tenant and later on vested in him on account of the operation of the Act. In the course of repartition proceedings, the land of Sham-i-lat Deh was allotted to the co-sharers and land measuring 11 kanal 7 Marlas of the Sham-i-lat Deh was also allotted to the plaintiff, on the basis of his being a co-sharer. Later on some co-shares of the Sham-i-lat Deh, excepting defendants 1 to 3, filed an appeal under section 40 of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act against the plaintiff before the Director Consolidation, Haryana, against the allotment. The Assistant Director, vide order dated 27.3.1968, accepted that appeal and remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer for necessary action. It was observed therein that the occupancy tenants over the land of Sham-i-lat Deh in whom the statute conferred proprietary rights could not claim any share out to the other land of Sham-i-lat Deh, as co-sharer. In view of this observation, the Consolidation Officer, vide his order dated 9.10.1971, directed the cancellation of the allotment of the land in suit, of Sham-i-lat Deh in favour of the plaintiff on the ground that he could not be deemed as a co-sharer entitled to the allotment of Sham-i-lat Deh. The plaintiff filed the present suit, challenging the validity of the orders dated 27.3.1968 and 9.10.1971, on the ground that they were without jurisdiction, illegal and void; inasmuch as these authorities were not competent to decide the entitlement or otherwise of the plaintiff to the share of the land in the Sham-i-lat Deh. The suit was contested inter alia on the ground that the consolidation authorities rightly discarded the claim of the plaintiff who was an occupancy tenant over the land of Sham-i-lat Deh. His plea of having become owner by adverse possession was also repelled. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the suit was also questioned. The trial Court negatived the plea of adverse possession of the plaintiff. It was also found that the plaintiff could not be treated a co-sharer entitled to the allotment of Sham-i-lat Deh, because the land of which he became the owner by operation of laws was itself Sham-i-lat Deh. In view of this finding, the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the said finding of the trial Court and thus, maintained the decree, dismissing the plaintiff's suit.

(3.) No meaningful argument could be raised on behalf of the appellant to challenge the concurrent finding of the two Courts below. Moreover, it has been rightly held by the Courts below that the plaintiff was not entitled to the share in the Sham-i-lat Deh on the basis of his being an occupancy tenant on the Sham-i-lat Deh land. Consequently, this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.