RSA No. 2822 of 2006(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 2822 of 2006 (O&M)
Date of Decision: September 07, 2009
Ramji Lal ...... Appellant
Versus
Smt. Jessia @ Jasia and others ...... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari
Present: Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Surinder Sheoran, Advocate
for respondents No. 1 to 24.
****
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Ajay Tewari, J.
This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of
the courts below dismissing the suit of the appellants claiming that they had
become owners of the land in dispute since they were occupancy tenants
thereon.
The following questions have been proposed:-
i) Whether a change made in the revenue entries without
notice to the effected parties and without any order by the
competent authority are to be ignored being void and illegal?
ii) Whether an entry in the revenue record which is long,
continuous and uninterrupted holds presumption in its
RSA No. 2822 of 2006(O&M) 2
favour?
iii)Whether the onus to prove payment of batai beyond land
revenue was on the respondents and once they have failed to
prove evidence in support thereof, adverse inference should
have been drawn against them?
iv)Whether the revenue record produced by the appellant
before the court has been misinterpreted by the Courts?
It would be seen that all the questions are pure questions of
fact. On appreciation of evidence the Courts below have held that neither
the appellants were proved to be in cultivating uninterrupted possession nor
were they able to establish their primary plea that the land had been given to
their ancestors in 1926. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me
that the findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or on
such misreading of evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section
100 C.P.C.
Consequently this appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc.
Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(AJAY TEWARI)
JUDGE
September 07, 2009
sunita