BALWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the plaintiffs/appellants is directed against the judgments of the learned trial Court dated 28.2.2000 and that of the learned first Appellate Court dated 12.5.2004.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the appellants claimed to be proprietors of land in village Khairpur, Tehsil and District Sirsa. A suit in representative capacity was filed by them pleading that during consolidation proceedings in the year 1962-63, 541 Kanals 3 Marlas of land was carved out of the holdings of the proprietors of land by imposing a general cut upon the holdings. This land was reserved for common purposes and some land which was detailed in the plaint was reserved for the income of the Gram Panchayat, Khairpur. This is the land which is stated to be in dispute and it measure 184 Kanals 6 Marlas. It was pleaded that this land was never used for the benefit of village community and remained in possession of 'Jumla Mushtarka Malkan'. A notification was issued on 9.10.1975 by which the entire area of village Khairpur was included in the Municipal limits of Municipal Committee, Sirsa and the revenue entries were allegedly changed in the year 1992. The appellants pleaded that they were in continuous possession of this land and they were owners thereof and further that the area lay outside the Municipal limits and prayed for declaration to that effect and also pleaded that injunction be granted to restrain the defendants/respondents from interfering in their possession. Mutation No. 4629 sanctioned in favour of the Municipal Committee was also challenged to be null and void.

(3.) WHILE determining issues No. 1 and 2, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the land was recorded as Jumla Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Arazi Hassab Rasad, Jumla Malkan or Mushtarka Malkan as shamlat deh within the meaning of Section 2(g) (4) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It categorically concluded that the suit land had been entered as Jumla Malkan Hasab Rasad Rakba Khewat as per the entries made in Ex.P-1 and therefore it had rightly been entered as shamlat deh. Thus, the findings on these issues were returned against the appellants. In so far as the possession was concerned, it was determined that since the appellants failed to prove their ownership and in the absence of anything to show their possession, the finding was returned against them. Regarding issue No. 4, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that no notice had been issued to the Municipal Committee, which was the mandate of law, under Section 52 of the Haryana Municipal Act and accordingly this issue was decided against the appellants. Issues No. 5 and 6 were determined in favour of the appellants. Issue No. 7 was determined in favour of the respondents and against the appellants while issue No. 8 was determined in favour of the appellants. The suit was dismissed.