05.02.2025 Gram Panc Tehsil & Panchayat of Village Silana, il & District Sonepat v. Ram Chand Chander and others
Case Details
1 &M) RSA-786-1994 (O&M) [106] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PU AT CHANDIGAR IGARH OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA RSA-786 Date of De 786-1994 (O&M) of Decision : 05.02.2025 Gram Panc Tehsil & Panchayat of Village Silana, il & District Sonepat …Appellant versus Ram Chand Chander and others ….Respondents Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA PANKAJ JAIN Present: vocate Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for the appellant. vocate Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate for the respondents. *** PANKAJ J KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) [1] [2] Defendant is in appeal. For convenience, parties here their s hereinafter are referred to by their original po nal position before the learned Trial C
Facts
ndant rial Court i.e. appellant as defendant and respond espondents as plaintiffs. [3] Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking o the eeking decree of declaration to the effect that t that they being in actual physical p r last sical possession of the land for last more than 1 than 100 years without paying any ren ereof. any rent have become owners thereof. Defendant ndant failed to appear and was proce Trial proceeded ex parte. Learned Trial Court whil t while considering oral testimony of /Hari ony of PW-1/Ram Dhan, PW-2/Hari Chand, PW d, PW-3/Munshi Ram and PW-4/ Jai rd in 4/ Jai Narain and revenue record in form of ja jamabandis pertaining to the year 1988- e years 1960-61, 1973-74 and 1988 89 came to the conclusion that though p ysical ugh plaintiffs are in actual physical RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.28 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document possession ession of the suit land but their pos ir possession is that of a Dohlidar dar. &M) RSA-786-1994 (O&M) 2 Dholi bein being a kind of tenancy granting rvices nting possession in lieu of services cannot be ot be held to have matured into own se of o ownership rights with the lapse of time. Learn Learned Trial Court dismissed the su the suit filed by the plaintiffs. [4] [5] Defendants filed the appeal. Learned Lower Appellate Cou dence te Court after reconsidering evidence found that d that as per jamabandi for the year 1 , was year 1909, the land in question, was owned by d by shamlat thaula jitwan hasab ras her of rasad aarzi. Ram Sarup father of Ram Chand Chander etc. and his brother Chandg ment handgi used to cultivate on payment of hasab p ab parta bila malkan. As per jam 44, jamabandi for the year 1943-44, Chandgi an dgi and Ram Sarup sons of Sheo R in the heo Ram have been recorded in the column of n of cultivation as gair moroosian. have sian. In column No.9, they have been menti mentioned as Basra Parta Bila Mal ina. Malkan Khata I Khidmat Darina. After 1960 r 1960-61, jamabandi for the year tence. year 1963-64 came into existence. Land was r was recorded as Gram Panchayat De Ram yat Deh. Chandgi son of Sheo Ram and Ram S am Sarup son of Sheo Ram were reco ntries re recorded as Gair Moroosi. Entries were repea repeated in 1988-89. In Column N gan umn No.10, it was recorded Lagan Nadarad B ad Ba Wajah Jabardasti. [6] Learned Lower Appellate Co d in ate Court further held that land in question, w tion, was a Shamlat Thaula Jitwan sad an Panna Chowth Hasab Rasad Aarzi. Sinc . Since the appellant and his forefath their refathers have been cultivating their land as Ga Gair Moroosi without payment of force ent of lagan after coming into force the Punjab unjab Tenancy Act, they got the o came the occupancy rights and became proprietors. rietors. Learned Lower Appellate Co filed ate Court thus, decreed the suit filed by the plain e plaintiffs, setting aside judgment and rned ent and decree passed by the learned Court. Trial Court [7] RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.28 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Legal Reasoning
ingh Bench of this Court in ‘Beant Singh and anoth another versus Malla Singh and oth 34 nd others’ reported as 1965 PLJ 34 and 1991 991 PLJ 387, to contend that an claim at an occupancy tenant can claim partition in tion in shamilat as well as abadi d lords di deh along with other landlords rietors. proprietors. [9] I have heard counsel for the p gone the parties and have carefully gone through the gh the records of the case. [10] In view of the ratio of law l ution law laid down by the Constitution Bench of S h of Supreme Court in ‘Pankajakshi rsus jakshi (dead) through LR’s versus Chandrika drika’, 2016 (6) SCC 157, substanti ot be bstantial question of law may not be framed in ed in a second appeal before Punja ourt. Punjab and Haryana High Court. However, t ever, the finding of fact recorded, can en in d, cannot be interfered with even in RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.28 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document terms of Se s of Section 41 of Punjab Act. The c hen The court may interfere only when &M) RSA-786-1994 (O&M) 4 there is qu is question of law involved thoug ntial hough it may not be substantial question of tion of law. [11] Plaintiffs filed a suit, claim ctual claiming that they are in actual physical po ical possession of land for last more t imed more than 100 years. They claimed that they they have been continuing in possessi o ssession without paying any rent to the landlord ndlord and thus have become owners wners in possession. [12] It has come on record in the fi arned the findings recorded by the learned Lower App er Appellate Court that Ram Chander, Ram ander, Ram Sarup sons of Sheo Ram have been been recorded in possession in the n the in the column of cultivation. In the correspond sponding entry in Column No.9 rea lkan .9 reads “Basra Parta Bila Malkan Khata I K I Khidmat Darina”, which mea is in h means that the cultivator is in possession ession for and in lieu of rendering ntries ing services. The said entries continued t nued till 1973-74. For the first time in 1988- time in jamabandi for the year 1988 89, the entr he entries in column of rent read as und as under:- “Lagan Nadarad Ba Waja Wajah Jabardasti” rcible i.e. forcible possession. [13] Instant suit was instituted on 0 venue ed on 07.01.1991. From the revenue record, it is d, it is evident that the plaintiffs neve of the s never remained in possession of the suit land w and without paying any rent. Rather t count ather their possession was on account of renderin ndering services in lieu of rent. That b from That being the situation evident from the revenue evenue record, plaintiffs cannot be he d be held to be occupancy tenants and thus entitle hts. entitled to acquire ownership rights. [14] This High Court in “Muni Ra ia ni Ram and others versus Phullia and Lalu Lalu’, 1974 PLJ 369 laid down certa lead certain circumstances that may lead to inference ference that the tenant is occupancy ten High ncy tenant. The observations of High RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.28 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Court reads t reads as under:- &M) RSA-786-1994 (O&M) 5 “6. 6. On a review of the various ju ave s judgments to which counsel have referred during the course of their refe ana eir submissions (Tota Ram v. Rana Bashisht Singh Chandra, 1952 L.L.T Bash rs v. .L.T. 1; Devki Nandan and others v. Shiv Lal, 1958 L.L.T. 40; Achhar Si Shiv rtar ar Singh and another v. Smt. Kartar Kaur and another, 1959 P.L.R. 23 Kau r v. . 231; Anant Ram and another v. Lakhbir Gupta, 1962 L.L.T. 43, and R Lak 967 and Raghbir Singh v. Beli Ram, 1967 P.L.R. (Delhi Section) 396, the follow P.L r to llowing propositions of law appear to me to be firmly settled :- me (i) (i) the intention of the landlord not uld not to eject the tenant for ever should be seen as at the time of the inceptio be se uent ption of the tenancy. Any subsequent intention cannot ordinarily have a inte the e any effect on the nature of the agreement which came into existence agr ent ence at the time of the commencement of the tenancy ; of th (ii) mere length of possession does (ii) uire does not entitle a tenant to acquire occupancy rights in the land in his pos occ s possession as a tenant ; (iii) the intention behind the wide (iii) the ide scope left by Section 8 of the Tenancy Act is:- Ten (a) not to restrict the tenant in any w (a) ts of ny way from establishing his rights of occupancy ; and occ (b) to presuppose the existence of a (b) hich of a large set of conditions in which occupancy rights can arise outside th occ the e the scope of Sections 5 and 6 of the Tenancy Act; Ten (iv) in cases where circumstances ex (iv) f an es exist from which an inference of an implied promise not to eject a tenant f imp den ant for ever can be raised, the burden of rebutting the said presumption mu of r the n must lie on the landlord, and if the landlord does not discharge that bur land the burden, effect should be given to the presumption and the tenant's claim to presu d be m to the occupancy tenancy should be accepted ; acc (v) a strong presumption of the imp (v) ant, implied promise not to eject a tenant, and, therefore, of the existence of an and r of f an occupancy tenancy in favour of such a tenant can be raised :- such (a) where a tenancy has lasted for m (a) has for many years during which there has been a rise in prices of agricultural bee t no ral produce and it is proved that no effort was made by the landlord to enh effo enhance the rent; and (b) where despite the existence of a (b) stent of a stray entry which is inconsistent with the preceding and the subsequen with r of quent entries over a large number of years, circumstances show that there yea rent ere was no intention to raise the rent RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.28 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 &M) RSA-786-1994 (O&M) or to recover anything for the owner fr or t er from the tenant.” [15] The plaintiffs being in posses annot possession in lieu of services cannot be held to eld to be occupancy tenants and are t ree of d are thus, not entitled for decree of declaration ration that they have become owners land. wners in possession of the suit land. Learned Lo ned Lower Appellate Court erred in th the d in bestowing the plaintiffs with the status of ‘ s of ‘occupancy tenants’. Resultant ecree sultantly, the judgment and decree passed by t d by the learned Lower Appellate Co d the ate Court is hereby set aside and the suit filed by iled by the plaintiffs is ordered to be o be dismissed. [16] All pending miscellaneous tands eous application(s), if any, stands
Arguments
Learned counsel for the appell dings appellant while assailing the findings &M) RSA-786-1994 (O&M) 3 recorded by ded by the learned Lower Appellate C dings llate Court contends that the findings are contrary ontrary to the revenue record. For the 89, or the first time in the year 1988-89, the posses possession of the plaintiffs was re n all was recorded as forcible. In all jamabandis andis prior thereto, the possession their session of the plaintiffs and their predecessor ecessors is on account of services ren ’. es rendered by them as ‘Dholidars’. Dholidar has a right to be in possessio ender session continuously and to render services, bu but the same never matures into ow into ownership. [8] Per contra, counsel for the t the r the respondents submits that the findings re ngs recorded by the learned Lower A upon wer Appellate Court are based upon documentar mentary evidence. As per the revenue dence venue record and the ocular evidence of the offi e official witnesses, Hari Chand ower and i.e. Halqa Patwari, the Lower Appellate C llate Court has rightly found the plain ership e plaintiffs to be entitled to ownership of the suit e suit property. In order to buttress upon ttress his arguments, he relies upon ratio of law of law laid down by Division Bench
Decision
disposed of ed off. .2025 05.02.2025 ‘R. Sharma' (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.03.28 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document