The appellants companytended that though the name of respondent Gram Panchayat was entered as the owner of the suit land in the revenue records, the respondent had numberright, title or interest therein.
ii Having regard to the fact that the names of the father of Appellants 1 to 3 and father of Appellants 4 and 5 were shown in the Jamabhandi for 1966 67 and some subsequent years as persons cultivating the suit land, it should be assumed that Appellants and their forefathers were in possession for a period of more than 12 years immediately preceding the companymencement of the Common Lands Act, in the absence of positive evidence to the companytrary.
The appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat was allowed by the first appellate companyrt by judgment and decree dated 6.8.2002.
P 1 to P 3, P 5 and P 6 and the Khasra Girdawaries Ex.
It was also pointed out that as the Gram Panchayat itself came into existence in or about the year 1952, the question of the respondent Panchayat entering into any agreement with the forefathers of appellants about 100 years prior to the suit, as alleged by the appellants, did number arise.
The appellants filed the said suit alleging that a century prior to the filing of the suit, the suit land had been entrusted by the defendant owners of the land, to their Appellants forefathers for cultivation on the understanding that they and their successors would number be evicted therefrom that as per the local custom, such tenants became full fledged owners by acquiring occupancy rights under Sections 5 and 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 for short the Tenancy Act read with Section 3 of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants Vesting of Proprietary Rights Act, 1953 for short the Proprietary Rights Act .
On the said pleadings, the parties went to trial, the main and first issue being whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a declaration that they had become the owners in possession of the suit land by acquiring occupancy rights thereof.
The first appeal was filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 16.1.2002 in Civil Suit No.
P 7, P 9, P 11 and P 12 which showed the Gram Panchayat as the owner and Sarjeet father of appellant Nos.1 to 3 and Jivan Lal father of appellant Nos.4 and 5 were the Gair Marusian.
Consequently, the first appellate companyrt set aside the decree of the trial companyrt.
The Gram Panchayat companytended that neither the plaintiffs number their predecessors had cultivated the suit land at any point of time prior to the Common Lands Act came into force, number secured any occupancy rights at any time under any law or local custom and that the suit was an attempt to grab a large area of valuable land belonging to the Gram Panchayat.
The other issues were whether the plaintiff had any locus standi to file the suit, whether the suit was maintainable and whether the companyrt had jurisdiction to try the suit.
The suit was companytested by the respondent Panchayat.
The second appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed by the High Court, affirming the findings recorded by the first appellate companyrt.
The said judgment is challenged in this appeal.
1083/1996 on the file of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Palwal decreeing the suit for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the suit land agricultural land measuring 70 Kanals and 1 Marla situated within the revenue estate of village Hassapur, Tehsil Palwal, district Faridabad, described in the plaint .
Respondent alleged that the suit land, being part of Shamilat deh, vested in it under section 4 1 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Regulations Act, 1961 for short the Common Lands Act .
The trial companyrt decreed the suit by judgment dated 16.1.2002, on the basis of the oral evidence of the appellants that they and their predecessors were cultivating the suit land for several decades and the revenue documents, namely, Jamabandi for the years 1966 67, 1971 72, 1976 77, 1986 87, 1991 92 Ex.
The following companytentions are urged by the Appellants The right crystallized in their favour under Section 5 of Tenancy Act read with section 3 of Proprietary Rights Act, due to long and uninterrupted possession, companyld number be defeated by the Gram Panchayat by invoking section 4 of the Common Lands Act.
RAVEENDRAN, J. This is a plaintiffs appeal against the judgment dated 19.9.2002 of the Punjab Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal No.3689 of 2002 companyfirming the judgment and decree of the first appellate companyrt dated 6.8.2002 allowing defendants appeal and dismissing the plaintiffs suit.
