M.M.KUMAR, J. - (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 :- "The short controversy involved in the present litigation is as to whether what is the effect of orders dated 3.6.1985 (copy) Ex. P5 passed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Palwal ordering correction of Khasra- girdawari entries of the land in dispute in favour of the appellant-defendant. Secondly, whether the order dated 29.7.1985 (copy Ex. P-7 passed by S.D.M. Palwal against the respondent-plaintiff still holds ground or not. It is not disputed that on the basis of these two orders, revenue entries with regard to land in dispute were changed in favour of the appellant-defendant. A perusal of copy of jamabandi Ex. P12/Ex. PE placed on the file shows the ownership of the land in dispute to be recorded in the name of Panchayat Deh Jodhpur and the same is in possession of Thana son of Bihari son of Ramli, 1/2 share; Shama, Kashi Ram, Ami sons of Naatha son of Girdhar, 1/2 share as gair morusian. Claiming to be in possession of the land in dispute, the appellant-plaintiff filed an application for correction of Khasra girdawari entries recorded in favour of Kashi Ram, Ami and one Bhuley son of Thana without impleading the owner as a party and that application was accepted on 3.6.1985. Though, it is mentioned in that order that Sarpanch Gram Panchayat stated the possession of Janglia over the land in dispute but without any specific order with regard to impleading Gram Panchayat as a party. After passing of this order in favour of appellant-defendant, he filed a suit seeking a decree for declaration under Section 13-A of Punjab Village Common Lands Act against Gram Panchayat and that suit was decreed on 29.7.1985 (copy) Ex. P-7, on an admission made by the then Sarpanch Hukam Singh as evident from his statement (copy) Ex. P-9 and which led to the mutating of the land in dispute in favour of the appellant-defendant as evident from document Ex. P14. But the admission made in this regard on behalf of Gram Panchayat cannot be relied upon and the same was rightly ignored by the Commissioner (Appeals), Hissar Division, Hissar while passing order (copy) Ex. PA 11.3.1987. There is nothing on the record to show that Hukam Singh Sarpanch was authorised to defend or admit the claim of appellant-defendant. The same view was taken in the case of Balwant Singh v. Gram Sabha, Behrampur Bet and others (supra). No authorisation is there on the file which may show that any resolution was passed in favour of Hukam Singh to admit the claim of the appellant-defendant with regard to the property in dispute. Secondly, though revenue entries were changed in favour of the appellant-defendant on the basis of orders dated 29.7.1985 passed by Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Palwal but when that order was set aside by the Commissioner, Hissar Divn., Hissar in a revision, then the continuation of the changed revenue entries is merely a futile exercise. It is well settled that entries in the revenue record are made for fiscal purposes and mutation does not create any title. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant-defendant is that Puran defendant was not a party in the proceedings initiated under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Land Act and so, he was not competent to file the revision against the order dated 20.7.1985. But the plea taken in this regard is devoid of merit. The property of a public institution was being taken away by the appellant- defendant and the same could not have been allowed to be jeopardised by persons who at an earlier point of time represented it, and who were expected to effectively defend public interest and community property."
(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'). I have heard Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, learned counsel for the defendant- appellant. It was pointed out that the suit was barred by time and the same could not have been entertained. The learned counsel has further pointed out that the civil Court has no jurisdiction with regard to the Panchayat land known as Shamlat Deh as per the provisions of Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961 (for brevity, Rs.1961 Act') as applicable to Haryana. Therefore, the judgments of both the Courts below are liable to be set aside.
(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 :- ".........The entry in column 9 thus fortifies the stand of the appellant. The sole entry on which the appellate court placed implicit reliance is by the Patwari in Jamabandi. It is settled law that the Jamabandi entries are only for fiscal purpose and they create no title. It is not the case that the appellant had any knowledge and acquiesced to it. Therefore, it is a classic instance of fabrication of false entries made by the Patwari, contrary to the contract made by the parties, though oral." ;