IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I. RSA-1910-1996 Bikar Singh v. Vs
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I. RSA-1910-1996 Bikar Singh and Others . . . . Appellants State of Haryana and Others II. Sukhdev Singh and Others Vs. Vs. . . . . Respondents RSA-1911-1996 . . . . Appellants State of Haryana and Others . . . . Respondents **** Reserved on: 29.10.2025 Pronounced on: 04.11.2025 **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Kartar Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Gaurav Garg, AAG, Haryana. Mr. Ashok Verma, Advocate for respondent Nos.9 and 10. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. These two Regular Second Appeals are directed against the judg-
Legal Reasoning
ments and decrees dated 23.02.1996 passed by the first Appellate Court of learned Addi1onal District Judge, Sirsa, whereby appeal of the defendants N: 1 to 3 was allowed, and the suits for declara1on filed by plain1ffs (appellants herein in both the appeals) were dismissed, reversing the decrees dated 01.06.1992 passed by trial Court of Ld. Addi1onal Senior Sub Judge, Dabwali, in favour of the plain1ffs – appellants herein. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.11.04 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1910-1996 RSA-1911-1996 2. Facts of both the cases are similar. Date of judgments passed by Trial Court and Appellate Court are same. Respec1ve Presiding Officers in both courts are same. For convenience, Factual matrix is noted from RSA N: 1910-1996 1tled ‘Bikkar Singh & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others.’ arising out of Civil Suit N: 316 of 1988. Other RSA N: 1911-1996 1tled ‘Sukhdev Singh & Others vs. State of Haryana & Others’ has arisen out of Civil Suit N: 312 of 1988. 3. For clarity, the par1es shall be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court. The photocopy of the Trial Court record was called and has been duly perused. 4.1 The plain1ffs filed a suit for declara1on and permanent injunc1on asser1ng that the father of defendants No. 4 to 7 namely, Hakam Singh, had been cul1va1ng the land described in paragraph 1 of the plaint (old khasra numbers in village Ganga) since 1857 as an occupancy tenant and that on the enforcement of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Ves(cid:24)ng of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952, said Hakam Singh became owner of the land. During consolida1on, new khasra numbers were alloFed, and Hakam Singh’s ownership con1nued in respect of 71 kanal 8 marla. 4.2 It is alleged that in January 1957, Nand Singh (father of the present plain(cid:24)ffs - appellants) dispossessed Hakam Singh and took cul1va1ng possession. Since then, he and, aHer his death, the plain1ffs have con1nuously, peacefully, and openly possessed the land as owners, hos1le to the 1tle of Hakam Singh and others. The plain1ffs therefore claimed ownership by adverse possession. 4.3 Plain1ffs further pleaded that defendants Balbir Kaur and Kishan Kaur wrongly declared the land as their surplus holding under the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. The Prescribed Authority, Dabwali, by order dated 30.03.1988, declared the suit land as surplus in their hands without NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.11.04 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 2 of 9 RSA-1910-1996 RSA-1911-1996 no1ce to the plain1ffs, who were in possession. The plain1ffs asserted that the order is illegal, void, and without jurisdic1on, and not binding upon them. 4.4 Subsequently, the Allotment Authority, Dabwali, vide order dated 20.05.1988, alloFed the land to defendants No. 9 to 11. The plain1ffs contended the said allotment to be is void, as defendants 9 to 11 were not residents of village Ganga, were not landless agricultural workers, and were otherwise ineligible under the Haryana U1lisa1on of Surplus and Other Areas Scheme, 1976. They also alleged that that defendants No. 1 to 3 – State Authori1es were threatening dispossession on the strength of those void orders. 4.5 Alterna1vely, the plain1ffs pleaded that if their ownership by adverse possession is not accepted, they should be treated as tenants in possession since before 1957, thereby en1tled to allotment of the land under the U1lisa1on Scheme. Having failed to secure acknowledgment of their rights, they prayed for declara1on of ownership and possession by seKng aside of the orders dated 30.03.1988 and 20.05.1988 to the extent of the suit land, and permanent injunc1on restraining defendants No. 1 to 3 from interfering with their possession. 5.1 Defendants No. 1 to 3 (State of Haryana etc.) denied the plain1ffs’ claim and pleaded that the plain1ffs or their predecessor were not in cul1va1ng possession since 1957, nor had they acquired ownership by adverse possession. They assert that 59 kanal 8 marla out of the suit land (described in specified rectangles and killa numbers) had been rightly declared surplus on 30.03.1988 and validly alloFed to eligible persons (defendants No. 9 to 11) under the U(cid:24)lisa(cid:24)on Scheme by order dated 20.05.1988. The remaining 12 kanal was not declared surplus. They asserted both orders as legal, valid, and binding and also raised some preliminary objec1ons. 5.2 Defendants No. 4 to 7 admiFed that their father, Hakam Singh, was an occupancy tenant who became owner under the 1952 Act, but denied the NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.11.04 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 3 of 9 RSA-1910-1996 RSA-1911-1996 other allega1ons. They claimed that aHer Hakam Singh’s death, they being his heirs, became owners and that defendants No. 4 and 5 con1nue to cul1vate the land. The plain1ffs, according to them, never possessed the land in any capacity and have no locus standi to sue. They alleged that the plain1ffs had procured false revenue entries in collusion with Balbir Kaur (defendant No. 8) and her son Sukhdev Singh. They also disputed the validity of the surplus and allotment orders but asserted their own en1tlement to allotment as persons in cul1va1ng possession. 5.3 Defendant No. 11 separately denied the plain1ffs’ possession and asserted that the land was rightly alloFed to him under the U(cid:24)lisa(cid:24)on Scheme, as he fulfilled the eligibility condi1ons, and that he is presently in possession as owner. He also raised some addi1onal legal objec1ons. 5.4 Defendants No. 8 to 10, despite service, failed to appear and were proceeded ex parte. 6. In their replica1ons, the plain1ffs reaffirmed their pleadings and denied the conten1ons of the contes1ng defendants. 7. Findings of Trial Court: Upon framing of issues and appraisal of the evidence led by both sides, the learned trial Court held that Balbir Kaur was not competent to declare the suit land as surplus in her hands, nor was the Prescribed Authority, Dabwali, competent to declare it as such. It further held that the plain1ffs had become owners in possession of the suit land in equal shares by adverse possession. The Court concluded that since the order dated 30.03.1988, declaring the suit land as surplus, was illegal and void, the subsequent allotment order dated 20.05.1988 was also illegal, null and void. It was held further that the civil court had jurisdic1on to try the suit; and that the suit was within limita1on. With these findings, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs, declaring the plain1ffs as owners in possession of the suit land in NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.11.04 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 4 of 9 RSA-1910-1996 RSA-1911-1996 equal shares, and that the orders dated 30.03.1988 and 20.05.1988 passed by the Prescribed and Allotment Authori1es, Dabwali, respec1vely, were illegal, null and void, and not binding upon the plain1ffs. The defendants were further restrained from interfering with the plain1ffs’ possession over the suit land or from alloKng it to any other person. 8. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree, defendants No. 1 to 3 pre- ferred the appeal. The first appellate court re-appraised the evidence and held that plain1ffs possession was not adverse to the true owner and so, reversed the finding of trial court in this regard. Further, the orders dated 30.03.1988 and 20.05.1988 passed by the Prescribed and Allotment Authori1es, Dabwali, respec1vely, were held to be legal and valid. Jurisdic1on of civil court to try this suit was also held to be barred by Sec1on 26 of the Ceiling Act. Accordingly, judgment and decree dated 1.6.1992 of learned trial Court were set aide and suit of the plain1ffs was dismissed. 9. Assailing the above reversal, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the First Appellate Court failed to properly appreciate the revenue record, and has wrongly set aside judgment & decree of Trial Court. 7.
Legal Reasoning
AHer hearing learned counsel for the par1es and examining the record, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. 8. The plain1ffs’ en1re case rests on their alleged acquisi1on of ownership through adverse possession. The trial Court accepted this plea primarily on the basis of oral evidence, disregarding the consistent revenue record. Such an approach is legally untenable. 9. The law is well seFled that 1tle by adverse possession cannot rest merely upon the oral asser1ons of a few witnesses. Were it otherwise, ownership of immovable property could be easily unseFled, undermining the sanc1ty of proprietary rights. As rightly observed by the first appellate court, when documentary evidence such as Jamabandi and khasra Girdawari entries NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.11.04 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 5 of 9 RSA-1910-1996 RSA-1911-1996 exist, they must prevail over oral tes1mony, as per Sec1on 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which bar oral contradic1on of wriFen public records. Oral evidence is relevant only where documentary proof is unavailable and even then must be of unimpeachable credibility. The trial Court’s reliance on uncorroborated oral evidence to confer ownership by adverse possession, contrary to long-standing revenue entries showing tenancy of plain1ffs on 1/3rd batai, is, therefore, has been rightly held to be clearly erroneous. 10. The plain1ffs themselves produced jamabandis from 1920-21 to 1982-83 (Ex. P-7 to P-21, P-23, P-28) and khasra girdawaris from 1957-58 to 1987-88 (Ex. P-22, P-24 to P-27). However, far from suppor1ng their claim, these documents completely negate their plea of adverse possession. Jamabandis from 1920-21 to 1962-63 (Ex. P-7 to P-19) consistently record Hakam Singh in possession of the suit land. It is only in the jamabandi for 1962-63 that Nand Singh (plain1ffs’ father) and Puran Singh (his brother) first appear as occupants. Hence, the plain1ffs’ asser1on that Nand Singh took possession in January 1957 stands contradicted by official record. Hakam Singh’s possession extended con1nuously from before 1920-21 up to 1962-63, and the entry of Nand Singh thereaHer cannot relate back to 1957. Coun1ng from 1962-63, the possession of the plain1ffs or their predecessor did not complete the requisite twelve years of con1nuous hos1le possession before the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 came into force on 24 January 1971. Consequently, the claim of ownership by adverse possession fails on the test of limita1on as well. 11. S1ll further, Jamabandis (Ex. P-20, P-21, P-23, P-28) for 1967-68 to 1982-83 record the possession of Nand Singh and Puran Singh as tenants on 1/3rd batai, not as owners in adverse possession. These consistent entries over several decades carry a statutory presump1on of correctness under Sec1on 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, and the presump1on remains unrebuFed. Hence, the long-standing revenue record conclusively proved that Nand Singh’s possession, and consequently that of the plain1ffs, was as NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.11.04 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 6 of 9 RSA-1910-1996 RSA-1911-1996 cul1va1ng tenants liable to pay 1/3rd batai. Adverse possession being inconsistent with a recognized tenancy, the plea of ownership by adverse possession is legally unsustainable. 12. The argument that no batai was ever paid is of no avail. Even if actual payment is not proved, the liability to pay rent as reflected in revenue entries establishes the juridical rela1onship of tenancy, not hos1lity. The mere omission or failure to pay rent does not convert permissive or deriva1ve possession into adverse possession unless there is open repudia1on of the landlord’s 1tle, which is absent here. Reliance by appellants on Joginder Pal v. Angad Singh, 1983 PLJ 14, is misplaced, because, in that case, the ini1al entry of the plain1ff was as a tenant, and the Court held that mere non-payment of rent could not convert permissive possession into adverse possession. 13. Furthermore, the plain1ffs cannot selec1vely rely on parts of the defendants’ version sugges1ng non-payment of batai, while ignoring their categorical denial of the plain1ffs’ possession. The revenue record, being contemporaneous and official, outweighs such self-serving oral statements. 14. The trial Court’s heavy reliance on oral evidence is misplaced. Plain1ff Kikar Singh (PW-1) deposed that his father took possession forcibly in January 1957; yet, on the date of his deposi1on in 1989, he was only 37 years old, meaning he was barely five years old in 1957. His tes1mony is thus hearsay and cannot establish an event of which he had no personal knowledge. The other witnesses, Gurdev Singh (PW-2), Mukh1ar Singh (PW-3), and Madan Lal (PW-4), merely made general statements that Nand Singh cul1vated the land since 1957. Their statements lack documentary corrobora1on and are easily procured. None of them possessed special credibility; indeed, PW-3 admiFed being a collateral rela1ve of the plain1ffs, rendering him an interested witness. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.11.04 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 7 of 9 RSA-1910-1996 RSA-1911-1996 15. On the other hand, Jagga Singh (DW-2) and Major Singh (DW-3) for the defendants categorically denied any possession of the plain1ffs, and their evidence stands more consistent with official records. 16. Accordingly, the oral evidence adduced by the plain1ffs is unreliable and insufficient to displace the presump1on of correctness of long- standing revenue entries. 17. Apart from above, another infirmity in the plain1ffs’ case as rightly no1ced by the first appellate court is the non-impleadment of Smt. Kishan Kaur, recorded as owner of 12 kanals (non-surplus) por1on of the suit land. Adjudica1ng ownership of her land without her presence violates Order I Rule 9 CPC, rendering the suit defec1ve for non-joinder of a necessary party. Relief in respect of that por1on could not have been granted in her absence. 18. Thus, the possession of the plain1ffs and their predecessor was not adverse but permissive and as tenants. They have failed to prove any hos1le asser1on of ownership. Once it is held that the plain1ffs were not owners by adverse possession, their further plea that the surplus area order dated 30.03.1988 was void for want of no1ce loses force. The plain1ffs had no locus to be heard in the proceedings under the Ceiling Act. 19. The record shows that Balbir Kaur (defendant No. 8) was the recorded owner of 59 kanal 8 marla, and the surplus declara1on was made aHer hearing her through her representa1ve Sukhdev Singh. Neither Hakam Singh nor his heirs were en1tled to no1ce, as his ownership had ceased post-1962-63. No appeal or challenge was filed by them or the plain1ffs thereaHer. Thus, the order of the Prescribed Authority passed aHer due process has been rightly found to be legal, valid, and binding. 20. No other point was urged. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.11.04 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 8 of 9 RSA-1910-1996 RSA-1911-1996 21. In all the above circumstances, the findings of the First Appellate Court in seKng aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court call for no interference. No illegality or perversity is made out. 22. Consequently, finding no merit in the appeals, the same are dis- missed. 04.11.2025 Nee(cid:24)ka Tuteja
Decision
Pending applica1on(s), if any, also stands disposed of. A photocopy of this order be placed on the connected case file. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? Yes/No Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.11.04 17:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 9 of 9