Amol Rattan Singh, J. - (1.) - This is the plaintiffs' second appeal after their suit seeking a declaration with a consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Sonepat and the first appeal filed by them was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat.
(2.) The plaintiffs had contended in their suit that they are in physical cultivating possession of agricultural land measuring 18 kanals and 17 marlas, fully described in the plaint, situated in the revenue estate of Village Joshi Chauhan, Tehsil and District, Sonipat, since the time of their forefathers, without paying any rent, lagan etc., since before 1943-44, i.e. much before the enactment of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961. The ten plaintiffs contended that they were co-owners of the suit land and had a share in the shamlat land of the village prior to enforcement of the aforesaid Act of 1961 and also 12 years prior to the enactment of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Property Rights) Act, 1953. They thus contended to be in continued peaceful possession of the suit land without interruption for more than 70 years and claimed to have become owners in possession thereof by acquiring occupancy right under Section 5 of the Punjab Tenanancy Act, 1887, read with Section 3 of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Property Rights )Act, 1953.
(3.) It was further stated in the plaint that the defendant Gram Panchayat had got entered a mutation in its favour after colluding with the revenue authorities, without giving any opportunity or notice to the plaintiffs and as such, they sought the setting aside of the said mutation on the ground that it was illegal, null and void, with subsequent entries thereafter also to be illegal and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. It was still further contended that the land had not been leased out by the Gram Panchayat and was not being used for any common purpose of the village and simply on the basis of a wrong mutation and revenue records, the defendants were threatening to interfere in the peaceful possession of the suit property, forcibly and illegally. It was therefore pleaded in the suit that the plaintiffs be declared to be the owners in possession of the suit land, being occupancy tenants, after declaring mutation No.886 to be illegal, null and void and further, a decree restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs, be also issued.;