A.L.BAHRI, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is by defendant-Amar Singh against the judgment and decree dated August 14,1985, passed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana whereby judgment and decree of the trial Court was set-aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed, for possession of the land in dispute. In appeal, additional evidence was allowed by the appellate Court and one of the grounds pressed during arguments was that no opportunity was given to the appellant to rebut the evidence produced before the appellate Court. This, vide order dated May 23, 1994, the appellant was allowed to produce documentary evidence to rebut the evidence produced before the appellate Court. The appellant did not produce any documentary evidence-He only wanted to appear as his own witness. Thus, statement of Amar Singh was recorded as D. W. 2, recalled.
(2.) THE dispute relates to the land comprising Rectangle No. 15, Killa No. 9 in village Jagirpur, District Ludhiana. Waryam Singh applied for purchasing the land in dispute under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act on July 14, 1970. Vide order dated August 25, 1980, the Assistant Collector allowed him to purchase the same. No appeal against the aforesaid order was filed. On January 17, 1968, Amar Singh was allowed purchase of land comprising other Killa numbers. His appeal was dismissed on August 28, 1969. It was in 1980 that Amar Singh took possession of the land in dispute. Waryam Singh filed a suit for possession of 5 Kanals 4 Marias of Killa No. 9, Rectangle No. 15 on March 13, 1981. The trial Court dismissed the suit on October 10, 1981. On appeal the case was remanded. However, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court. Subsequently the appeal was allowed that Amar Singh has filed the present Regular Second Appeal. When appeal was pending before the lower appellate Court, additional evidence in the form of copies of Orders Annexures C1, C2, and C3 were produced. These related to the application for purchase of land and the orders passed thereon in favour of Amar Singh, indicating that the land comprising Rectangle No. 15, Killa No. 9 was specifically excluded while allowing purchase to Amar Singh of the land under his tenancy, under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. D. W. 2 Amar Singh when appeared in this Court deposed that the disputed land comprised of Rectangle No. 15, Killa No. 9 is measuring 5 Kanals 4 Marias. It was out of 8 Kanals, total area of Killa No. 9. The aforesaid land measuring 5 Kanals 4 Marias was allotted to him and since 1960 he claimed to be in possession thereof. The remaining land 2 Kanals 16 Marias, out of Killa No. 9, was purchased by Waryam Singh, which was allotted to him. He did not claim possession of that piece of land. During cross-examination, he was confronted with order Annexure C/3 that his appeal for purchase of land comprising Killa No. 9, Rectangle No. 15 stood dismissed. Although he claimed to have deposited price of the same, yet did not know the amount deposited. He also did not know anything about the receipt.
(3.) THE question involved is a question of fact, which has been decided by the lower appellate Court on perusal of documents Annexures C/1 to C/3. These documents relate to purchase of land which was with Amar Singh as tenant under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. These orders specifically exclude the land comprising Rectangle No. 1 Killa No. 9 and the remaining land was allowed to be purchased. These orders are final and cannot be questioned in civil Court as was held by this Court in Ram Chander and Ors. v. Dallu and Anr. 1982 P. L. J. 230. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to the revenue records Exhibits D/10 to D/17 in order to show that the appellant was in possession of then land in dispute as tenant. However, this contention is devoid of any merit. In none of these documents Amar Singh appellant has been described as a tenant on payment of any hatai or fixed rent. Mere mentioning of the word 'gair Marusi' will not clothe him with the status of a tenant. Reliance was also placed on Exhibit D/8, a mutation with respect to change of ownership from Roshan Lal to Amar Singh in September, 1967. In may be observed that the mutations do not create any title. Even otherwise, it has been demonstrated to be wrong as vide order Annexure C/3 land comprising Killa No. 15/9 was never allowed to be purchased by Arriar Singh. Finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed with costs.;