State of Haryana and Others vs Raj Bala

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—The conspectus of the facts relevant for disposal of the present appeal and emanating from the record is that

Smt. Raj Bala, wife of late Sh. Jai Parkash Respondent-Plaintiff (hereinafter to be referred as the Plaintiff filed the suit for a decree for possession

of the disputed land against the State of Haryana and its officers Appellants-Defendants (for brevity the Defendants inter alia pleading that she is

the owner of the suit land which was previously owned by Om Parkash, son of Charan Dass, son of Ruli Ram. The suit land was acquired by the

Collector under the provisions of the East Punjab Land Utilization Act, 1949 (for short the Utilization Act and was allotted to Ex-servicemen Co-

operative Joint Farming Society, on lease, in the year 1950 for a period of 20 years i.e. Kharif 1950 to Rabi, 1970. After expiry of the lease

period, the Plaintiff applied to the Collector for return of the possession of the suit land by taking the possession back from the lessees (Society),

but in vain. After a prolonged litigation upto the High Court, Plaintiff succeeded in getting the possessory rights through Collector vide entry (rapat

roznamcha) dated 25.01.2000 in compliance with the provisions of the Utilization Act. Consequently, the Collector delivered the possession of the

suit land to her.

According to the Plaintiff that the Defendants again occupied and illegally constructed the school building on the land in dispute. She claimed that

the possession of the Defendants over the suit land is illegal, unauthorized and against the provisions of the Utilization Act. She asked the

Defendants to surrender the possession and to pay mesne profits for unauthorized use and occupation of the suit land but in vain, even despite legal

notice u/s 80 Code of Civil Procedure.

Concisely, according to the Plaintiff, she is the owner and Defendants are in illegal and unauthorized possession of the disputed property. On the

basis of the aforesaid allegations, Plaintiff filed the suit for a decree for possession against the Defendants in the manner described hereinabove.

The Defendants contested the suit and filed the written statement inter alia pleading certain preliminary objections of maintainability of the suit

and locus standi of the Plaintiff, etc. According to the Defendants, they are owner and in possession since 08.11.1961 and they have become

owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession. It will not out of place to mention here that the Defendants have stoutly denied all other

allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the relevant issues for proper adjudication of the case.

The parties to the litigation produced on record the oral as well as documentary evidence, in order to substantiate their respective stands.

Having completed all the codal formalities and on ultimate analysis of evidence on record, the trial Court decreed the suit of the Plaintiff and

directed the Defendants to hand over the vacant possession of the suit land to her within a period of 2 months and to pay mesne profits @ Rs.

5,000/- per annum by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 18.09.2007.

Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court, the Appellant-Defendants filed the appeal which was dismissed as well by

first Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 17.12.2009.

The Appellant-Defendants still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below and filed the present appeal.

Having heard the learned State counsel for the Appellant-Defendants, having gone through the record with his valuable help and after bestowal

of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the appeal.

Ex facie, the argument of learned State counsel that since the State of Haryana-Defendants is in possession of the suit property since

08.11.1961, so, they became its owner by way of adverse possession, is not only devoid of merits but misplaced as well.

As is evident from the record, Ex.P-13 is the Jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 wherein Plaintiff is recorded to be the owner of the suit land.

Prior to it, her predecessor-Om Parkash was recorded as the owner of the suit land as per Jamabandi Exs.P-5, P-6 and P-12 for the years 1974-

75, 1989-90 and 1994-95 respectively. That means Plaintiff is proved to be the owner of the land in dispute.

It is not a matter of dispute that, the Collector had acquired the suit land under the provisions of the Utilization Act for a specific purpose of

handing over the same to the Society of Ex-servicemen, for a limited period of 20 years on lease for the purpose of cultivation vide mutations

Ex.P-7 and P-8. Thus, after the expiry of lease period, the land has to be reverted back to the original owner. Therefore, it was obligatory on the

part of the Collector to return the suit land to the owner after getting the same vacated from the lessee on completion of 20 years. However, the

Collector did not perform his official duty and Plaintiff had to approach this Court by way of CWP No. 8462 of 1998. In pursuance of the order

dated 15.09.1999 of this Court, the symbolic possession was given to the owner of the land. Therefore, in these circumstances, the Defendants

cannot possibly claim their ownership by way of adverse possession. In view of law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in case Hemaji

Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan and Ors. 2008 (2) HRR 431.

In this respect, the first Appellate Court observed as under:

After hearing both the sides and going through the lower court file carefully, I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the

contentions raised on behalf of the Defendants/Appellants. The copy of jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 is available on the lower court file as

Ex.P13. As per the same, the Plaintiff/Respondent is recorded to be owner the suit land. The presumption of truth is attached to the entries of

jamabandi. Though, the said presumption is rebuttable but there is no rebuttal to the same. Prior to the Plaintiff/Respondent, her predecessor Om

Parkash was owner of the suit land, as is clear from the jamabandies for the years 1974-75, 1989-90 and 1994-95, copies of which are Ex.P-5,

Ex.P-6 and Ex.P-12, respectively. Still prior thereto, one Ruli Ram was owner of the suit land, as is clear from the jamabandi for the year 1959-

60, copy of which is Ex.p-4. Admittedly, the suit land was acquired by the State of Haryana under the provisions of East Punjab Land Utilization

Act, 1949, for a specific purpose of handing over the same to the society of Ex-servicemen for a fixed period of 20 years for the purpose of

cultivation, vide mutations No. 869 and 880, copies of which are Ex.P-7 and Ex.P-8, respectively. As per the provisions of said Act, the land was

to be redelivered to the owners after taking the same from the lessees after the specified period. Therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the

collector to return possession of the suit land to the owner after getting the same vacated from the lessees on completion of 20 years. However, the

collector did not do so and me Plaintiff/Respondent had to knock at the door of the court. Thereafter, after a chequered litigation, the

Plaintiff/Respondent got symbolic possession vide rapat dated 25.1.2000, copy Ex.P-9, in pursuance of the order dated 15.09.1999, passed by

the Hon''ble High Court in CWP No. 8462 of 1998. In this regard, mutation No. 5449 and 5450 dated 28.02.2000, copies Ex.P-10 and Ex.P-

11, respectively, were also sanctioned. The entries of khasra girdawaris were also changed to the name of the Plaintiff/Respondent, as is clear from

the copy of Khasra girdawari Ex.P-14. However, since there was school building existing over the suit land, the Plaintiff/Respondent filed the

present suit for possession, which is being resisted primarily on the ground of adverse possession. However, this plea of the Defendants/Appellants

is not proved. It is so far well settled that possession howsoever long, does not confer any right title or interest. Therefore, mere long possession of

the Defendants/Appellants does not clothe them with ownership by adverse possession. Moreover, there is nothing alleged as to when hostile

possession of the Defendants/Appellants came to begin. The adverse possession must commence with the wrongful dispossession of the rightful

owner at some particular time. Therefore, the learned trial court was right in concluding that mere possession of the Defendants/Appellants has not

ripened into ownership by adverse possession. The present suit is based on title and suit for possession, in such circumstances, must succeed.

Therefore, findings recorded by the learned trial court, in this behalf, are affirmed

Thus, the Courts below have rightly accepted the claim of the Plaintiff in this respect. Therefore, the contrary arguments of learned State

counsel stricto sensu deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances.

No other meaningful argument has been raised by learned State counsel for the Appellant-Defendants to assail the findings of the Courts below

in this context. All remaining arguments, relatable to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged on their behalf have already been duly

considered and dealt with by the Courts below.

There is another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed from a different angle. The trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court have

taken into consideration and appreciated the entire relevant evidence brought on record by the parties in the right perspective.

Having scanned the admissible evidence in relation to the pleadings of the parties, the Courts below have recorded the well articulated arid well

reasoned above indicated concurrent findings of fact. Such pure concurrent findings of fact, based on the evidence, cannot possibly be interfered

with by this Court while exercising the powers conferred u/s 100 Code of CPC unless and until the same are illegal and perverse. No such patent

illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by learned Counsel for the Appellant-Defendants, so as to take a contrary view, than that of well

reasoned decisions already arrived at by the Courts below in this regard.

Meaning thereby, the entire case revolves around the re-appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence on record, which is not legally

permissible and is beyond the scope of second appeal. Since no question of law, muchless substantial, is involved in the second appeal, in view of

law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in case Kashmir Singh Vs. Harnam Singh and Another, , so, no interference is warranted, in the

impugned judgments/decrees of the Courts below as contemplated u/s 100 Code of Civil Procedure, in the obtaining circumstances of the present

case.

No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant-Defendants. 21. In the

light of the aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed.