Gita Devi and ors. vs Notified Area Committee, Mahendergarh

M.R. Agnihotro, J.

This Regular Second Appeal arises from a suit for declaration filed by the appellants Smt. Gita Devi widow of Mahabir Parshad and other sons and daughters etc. of Mahabir Parshad in which they wanted to establish their ownership in possession of the land in dispute as it did not fall within the definition of Shamilat land as defined in Section 2(g)(5)(viii) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. According to the plaintiffappellants the land in dispute stood assessed to land revenue and they were in continuous possession of the same since January 26, 1970, flowing therefrom the assertion that the Notified Area Committee, Mahendergarh, had been wrongly recorded as owner in the column of ownership Plea of adverse possession was also taken as an additional ground for claiming ownership on the basis of continuous possession for the last more than twelve years and on that basis the appellants prayed that the respondentdefendants be restrained from interfering in their possession.

According to the Notified Area Committee, the land in dispute was a part of Shamilat Khewat and the plaintiffappellants never became owners of the same even by adverse possession.

Another suit for declaration with respect to the same, land in dispute was filed by Durga Parshad and others which was consolidated by the trial Court with this suit filed by Smt. Gita Devi and others.

This suit was decreed by the learned Subordinate Judge Ist Class, Mahendergarh, on January 16, 1980, and the other filed by Durga Parshad and others was dismissed, with a declaration that the entry regarding ownership in favour of the Notified Area Committee being incorrect was to be rectified. The Notified Area Committee was also restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffappellants over the land in dispute.

In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, reversed the finding and held that the Notified Area Committee was the owner of the land in dispute and the plaintiffappellants Smt. Gita Devi and others and Durga Parshad and others had nothing to do with the same. Accordingly, the suit of Smt. Gita Devi etc. was dismissed. Against that judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, pronounced on February 23, 1985, the present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred.

I have gone through the evidence on record with the help of the learned counsel for the parties and find that the findings arrived at by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, are without any basis. In fact, it is an admitted case of the Notified Area Committee that there was no Panchayat in an urban area and the appellants had been in continuous possession of the land in dispute since 1993 BK (corresponding to 1936 AD). Consequently, the name of the Notified Area Committee was inadvertently mentioned in the ownership column and, hence, entry regarding the same deserved to be corrected by excluding the land in dispute from the definition of common land. Jamabandis Exhibit P7 for the years 199394 BK (corresponding to 193637 AD), Exhibit P4 for the years 195253 and Exhibit P9 for the years 195657 conclusively prove the possession of the appellants on the land in dispute.

In view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, this appeal filed by Smt. Gita Devi and others against the Notified Area Committee, Mahendergarh, is hereby allowed and their suit is decreed without any order as to costs. Consequently, cross appeals that is Regular Second Appeal No. 1735 of 1985 (Durga Parshad and others v. Notified Area Committee and others) and Regular Second Appeal No. 1737 of 1985 (Durga Parshad and others v. Notified Area Committee and others) are dismissed as on the basis of the evidence on record only Smt. Gita Devi and ors., the plaintiff appellants in Regular Second Appeal No. 1620 of 1985 are proved to be owners in possession of the land in dispute.