- (1.) The appellants are aggrieved of the concurrent finding of fact, whereby the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs has been decreed and they have been declared as owner in possession of a suit land bearing Khewat No.255, Khatoni No.350, Khasra No.597, measuring 1 bigha and 7 biswas, situated within the revenue estate of village Nathupur, Tehsil and District Gurgaon and the defendants have been held to be having no right, title or interest over it and the entries in the revenue record in the name of Civil Panchayat deh have been held to be illegal and not binding upon the plaintiffs and with a further direction that the entries are liable to be corrected in their favour and injuncting the defendants from creating any obstruction in use and occupation over the suit property aforementioned.
(2.) Mr. Ashwani Kumar Bura, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Municipal Corporation, Gurgaon, submits that as per the jamabandi Ex.P-11 onwards, the nature of the land is banjar kadim, and therefore, the respondents-plaintiffs could not establish their ownership right in view of the Erstwhile Act, namely Punjab Tenancy Act, 1868, much less, on the appointed day of the new Act, namely, the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of. Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 (herein after called 'the Act No.8 of 1953'). They have not been shown to be tenants but as maurausi tenants i.e. without any rent and, therefore, the right in the property could not be converted into proprietorship/ownership. No proof of ownership/proprietorship has been placed on record, yet the Courts below decreed the suit. No evidence has come on record to show that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff, namely, Khacheru was declared as owner in the year 1939, the nature of the land was banjar kadim, and banjar kadim would not clothe the tenants' right into ownership as per the provisions of the aforementioned Act and submits that the aforementioned facts have totally been misread and misdirected by both the Courts below and thus, the substantial questions of law arises for the determination of this Court.
(3.) Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Harsh Bunger, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, submits that owing to the promulgation of the Act No.8 of 1953, the appointed date of the Act was 15.06.1952 and the same came into force on 15.04.1953. In support of his contentions, he has drawn the attention of this Court to the definitions 2 (i) to show that the on appointed day would mean any tenant who, immediately before the commencement of this Act, is recorded as an occupancy tenant of any land in the revenue records would be 15.06.1952. As per Section 2-f of the Act No.8 of 1953, occupancy tenant means, a tenant, who immediately before the commencement of this Act, in the revenue records, would be included as an occupancy tenant and obtained a right of occupancy in respect of the land held by him whether by an agreement with the landlord or through a court of competent jurisdiction or otherwise, and includes also the predecessors and successors-ininterest of an occupancy tenant. Section 3 of the Act No.8 of 1953, prescribes that the proprietary rights in occupancy tenant would deem to vest in the occupancy tenant free from all encumbrances.;