RAJESH BINDAL,J - (1.) THE plaintiff-appellant having remained concurrently unsuccessful before the Courts below in his plea seeking declaration to be the owner of the suit land, approached this Court through the present regular second appeal.
(2.) THE plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land measuring 5 kanals 4 marlas comprised in khewat No. 45 khatauni No. 139 khasra Nos. 17M/16/1/1 (2-16) 16/1/2 (2-12) amended vide order dated 20.4.1981 vide jamabandi 1973-74 situated in the area of village Lohke Kalan, Tehsil Zira with a consequential relief that the defendants be restrained from asserting their right or interest and interfering in his peaceful possession. The claim of the plaintiff was contested by the defendants on the grounds that the plaintiff-appellant is not the owner of the suit land and that on 11 June, 1951 the defendants-respondents in 1/2 share, Suba Singh in 1/2 share and Darshan Singh plaintiff in 1/2 share and Balbir Singh in 1/2 share purchased the land measuring 138 Kanals 2 Marlas through a registered sale deed from Bhola Singh and Sawan Singh son of Thakar Singh, that on 28.10.1953 Suba Singh and Darshan Singh plaintiff sold Land measuring 21 Kanals 9 marlas bearing Khasra No. 2519/1581 (8-3), 1605 (13-6) and land measuring 3 Kanals 18 Marlas being 1/2 share of 7 Kanals 16 Marlas bearing Khasra No. 5224/1585 total area 25 kanals 7 marlas by a registered deed in favour of defendants and that mutation No. 1225 was sanctioned and possession was taken by the vendees, that consolidation of holdings took place in the village and Khatoni Istemal was prepared according to the above mentioned sale deed and defendants- respondents and Sardara Singh owned some other land and Naksha Haqdarwar of plaintiff-appellant Suba Singh and Sardara Singh were separately prepared but Naksha Haqdarwar of defendants-respondents was prepared separately that the land measuring 25 Kanals 7 Marlas purchased from Suba Singh and Darshan Singh vide registered sale deed dated 28.10.1953 in favour of Sardara Singh 1/2 share and Kartar Singh.
(3.) DARBARA Singh's 1/2 share was not included in their Naksha Haqdarwar but this land was included in the Naksha Haqdarwar of Darshan Singh, plaintiff- appellant and Suba Singh who got land in lieu of the land sold by them in consolidation of holdings i.e. Darshan Singh and Suba Singh were allotted more land equivalent to 25 kanals 7 marlas then they were entitled to and the action was taken under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 for making necessary entries in the Revenue Records and the Director vide his memo No. P.A./1813 Camp dated 21.8.1979 advised to treat applications of defendants-respondents as a petition under Section 42 of the said Act, and the plaintiff and Suba Singh were given notice and they appeared before the Additional Director of Consolidation Holdings of Punjab, Jullundur, and it was held that the defendants-respondents stood allottees in their claim less to the extent of 13 kanals 6 marlas ordinary and that this was an omission on the part of the consolidation authorities and the additional Director after making full inquiry vide order dated. 18.1.1980 remanded the case to the consolidation Officer and for further investigation to the claim of the parties and supplying the deficiency to the defendants-respondents and Sardara Singh after hearing the necessary parties, the consolidation Officer summoned the plaintiff and Suba Singh and allotted 6 kanals 12 marlas bearing Khasra No. 4 M/12 East (6-0) 13/1 (0-12) out of the land of Suba Singh and 5 kanals 8 marlas bearing Khasra Nos. 17 M/16/1/1 (2-16), 16/1/2 (North) (2-12) out of the land Darshan Singh to the defendant and Sardara Singh jointly vide order dated. 26.2.1980 and the consolidation Officer was desired to deliver the possession of the suit land to the defendants-respondents and Sardara Singh in due course of law. That Khasra No. 6M/12 (8-0) is in possession of Sardara Singh and that the plaintiff-appellant has no right in Khasra Nos. 17 M/16/1 (2-2) and 16/1/2 (1-10) that they have concealed the true facts from the court and therefore, they are not entitled to relief of permanent injunction and that the defendants-respondents and Sardara Singh would take possession of the land allotted to them in due course of law and that the suit of the plaintiff-appellant be dismissed with costs.;