OM PARKASH Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT JODHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that order dated 3.6.1985 Ex. P-5 passed by the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Palwal, directing correction of Khasra Girdawari entries of the land in dispute in favour of the defendant- appellant is of no consequence and that the order dated 29.7.1985 Ex. P-7 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Palwal, against the plaintiff- respondents would not affect the rights of the plaintiff-respondent Gram Panchayat. The revenue entries in pursuance to the aforesaid orders were changed in favour of the defendant-appellant. The views of the learned Appellate Court on the afore-mentioned issues read as under :-

(2.) ANOTHER plea repelled by the learned Additional District Judge is concerning the period of limitation in filing the suit. It is appropriate to mention that Civil Suit No. RBT 696/14.10.1999/2.5.1991 was filed on 2.5.1991 seeking declaration and permanent injunction as a consequential relief in respect of the suit land. Claiming that the suit should have been filed within three years from the date of the cause of action i.e. passing of the judgment and decree dated 17.4.1989 and the illegal order dated 29.7.1985 passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, the defendant-appellant had asserted that the suit was beyond the period of limitation. However, this argument was rejected by the learned Additional District Judge holding that in a suit for declaration on the basis of title as well as possession, the period of limitation prescribed is 12 years under Article 65 of the Schedule attached to the Limitation Act, 1963 (for brevity, 'the Act').

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel, I do not feel persuaded to take a view different than the one taken by the Courts below. The order dated 3.6.1985 passed by the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Palwal directing correction of khasra girdawari entries of the land in dispute in favour of the defendant- appellant was challenged under Section 13-A of 1961 Act. The petition filed under Section 13-A of 1961 Act was accepted on 29.7.1985 vide Ex. P7 because of an admission made by the then Sarpanch Hukam Singh. The statement of the Sarpanch is Ex. P9. On the basis of decision of the competent authority under Section 13-A of the Act, the mutation of the land in dispute was sanctioned in favour of the defendant-appellant. However, on 11.3.1987 the admission made by the Sarpanch was ignored by the Commissioner (Appeals), Hisar Division, Hisar while passing the order Ex. PA because Hukam Singh had not been authorised to defend or admit the claim of the defendant-appellant. Therefore, the change in the revenue entries on the basis of order dated 29.7.1985 would not enure to the benefit of the defendant-appellant as that change is inconsequential because of the order dated 11.3.1987 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Hisar Division, Hisar. Moreover, it is well settled principle of law that entries in the revenue record like jamabandis are only for fiscal purpose and such entries do not create any title. This view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh, 1993(3) RRR 669 (SC) : (1993) 4 SCC 403. The relevant observations of their Lordships read as under :-