RSA No. 1216 of 2000 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT State of Haryana through Collector, Kaithal Shri Ram (since deceased) through his LRs & Ors. CORAM :HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Argued by:- DEEPAK GUPTA, The State of Haryana has filed the present regular second appeal challenging the judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 14.12.1999, whereby the plaintiffs’ suit for possession was decreed. The trial earlier dismissed the suit on 20.03.1997. For clarity, the parties are referred to by their status before the trial Court. 2. comprised in Khewat No. 40 min/37 min, Khatoni No. 75 min, Khasr 224, situated in village Chandan, Tehsil and District Kaithal (as per jamabandi for 1987 for about five years having raised a structure for the notice under Section 80 CPC, possession was not restored, leading to the suit. 3. century and that the land had been used by the Irrigation Department since RSA No. 1216 of 2000 Page N: 1 of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT State of Haryana through Collector, Kaithal Versus Shri Ram (since deceased) through his LRs & Ors. CORAM :HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Mr.Rajbir Singh DAG Haryana for the appellant. Mr. J.S. Toor, Advocate and Mr. Adhiraj Toor, Advocate For respondents No.1 to 5. *** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The State of Haryana has filed the present regular second appeal challenging the judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 14.12.1999, whereby the plaintiffs’ suit for possession was decreed. The trial earlier dismissed the suit on 20.03.1997. For clarity, the parties are referred to by their status before the trial Court. The dispute concerns land measuring 1 kanal 6 marlas, comprised in Khewat No. 40 min/37 min, Khatoni No. 75 min, Khasr 224, situated in village Chandan, Tehsil and District Kaithal (as per jamabandi for 1987–88). The plaintiffs claimed ownership and alleged that for about five years, the defendant had been in unauthorised possession, having raised a structure for the Canal Department. Despite service of notice under Section 80 CPC, possession was not restored, leading to the The defendant contested, asserting ownership for over a century and that the land had been used by the Irrigation Department since IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH RSA No. 1216 of 2000(O&M) Reserved on: 03.09.2025 Date of decision: 05.09.2025 …Appellant Shri Ram (since deceased) through his LRs & Ors. …Respondents DEEPAK GUPTA The State of Haryana has filed the present regular second appeal challenging the judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 14.12.1999, whereby the plaintiffs’ suit for possession was decreed. The trial Court had earlier dismissed the suit on 20.03.1997. For clarity, the parties are referred The dispute concerns land measuring 1 kanal 6 marlas, comprised in Khewat No. 40 min/37 min, Khatoni No. 75 min, Khasra No. 224, situated in village Chandan, Tehsil and District Kaithal (as per 88). The plaintiffs claimed ownership and alleged that the defendant had been in unauthorised possession, Canal Department. Despite service of notice under Section 80 CPC, possession was not restored, leading to the The defendant contested, asserting ownership for over a century and that the land had been used by the Irrigation Department since (O&M) Reserved on: 03.09.2025 .2025 Appellant s The State of Haryana has filed the present regular second appeal challenging the judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 14.12.1999, Court had earlier dismissed the suit on 20.03.1997. For clarity, the parties are referred The dispute concerns land measuring 1 kanal 6 marlas, a No. 224, situated in village Chandan, Tehsil and District Kaithal (as per 88). The plaintiffs claimed ownership and alleged that the defendant had been in unauthorised possession, Canal Department. Despite service of notice under Section 80 CPC, possession was not restored, leading to the The defendant contested, asserting ownership for over a century and that the land had been used by the Irrigation Department since JITEN SHARMA 2025.09.05 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 1216 of 2000 the construction of the Sirsa Branch Canal. It was pleaded that a regulation hut and staff quarters had been built thereon and, since the land already belonged to the Department, no acquisition or compensation was required. 3. had failed to establish ownership and that the defendant was owner in possession. The Appellate Court, however, on appreciation of revenue records, found that the plaintiffs and their predecessors were consistently recorded as owners since 1959 had been produced by the State, and the land plans (Ex.D1 and D2) relied upon by the defendant did not confer ownership, nor did they even mention Khasra No. 224. Consequently, the appellat trial Court decision 4. Government Pleader for the appellant argued that the trial Court’s findings were well reasoned and that acquisition in 1890, even though no notification was produced. Reliance was also placed on oral testimony of the SDO regarding the long existence of the Sirsa Branch Canal. 5. the Appellate Court, emphasizing that revenue entries carried presumption of truth, which the defendant failed to rebut. 6. from 1959–60 onwards, which recorded the plaintiffs’ predecessors as owners in self Act, entries in the revenue record carry a presumption of truth unless rebutted. The defendant produced n these entries. The mere oral testimony of the SDO was insufficient. 7. establish ownership or acquisition. In fact, Khasra No. 224 is not shown in RSA No. 1216 of 2000 Page N: 2 of 3 construction of the Sirsa Branch Canal. It was pleaded that a regulation hut and staff quarters had been built thereon and, since the land already belonged to the Department, no acquisition or compensation was required. The trial Court dismissed the su had failed to establish ownership and that the defendant was owner in possession. The Appellate Court, however, on appreciation of revenue records, found that the plaintiffs and their predecessors were consistently as owners since 1959–60. It noted that no acquisition notification had been produced by the State, and the land plans (Ex.D1 and D2) relied upon by the defendant did not confer ownership, nor did they even mention Khasra No. 224. Consequently, the appellat decision and decreed the suit, in favour of plaintiff Assailing the above findings of appellate court, t Government Pleader for the appellant argued that the trial Court’s findings were well reasoned and that the land plans supported the case of acquisition in 1890, even though no notification was produced. Reliance was also placed on oral testimony of the SDO regarding the long existence of the Sirsa Branch Canal. Conversely, counsel for the plaintiffs su the Appellate Court, emphasizing that revenue entries carried presumption of truth, which the defendant failed to rebut. Heard. The Appellate Court rightly relied upon 60 onwards, which recorded the plaintiffs’ predecessors as owners in self-cultivation. Under Section 44 of the Act, entries in the revenue record carry a presumption of truth unless rebutted. The defendant produced no documentary evidence to displace these entries. The mere oral testimony of the SDO was insufficient. The land plans (Ex.D1 and D2), even if considered, do not establish ownership or acquisition. In fact, Khasra No. 224 is not shown in construction of the Sirsa Branch Canal. It was pleaded that a regulation hut and staff quarters had been built thereon and, since the land already belonged to the Department, no acquisition or compensation was required. The trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to establish ownership and that the defendant was owner in possession. The Appellate Court, however, on appreciation of revenue records, found that the plaintiffs and their predecessors were consistently 60. It noted that no acquisition notification had been produced by the State, and the land plans (Ex.D1 and D2) relied upon by the defendant did not confer ownership, nor did they even mention Khasra No. 224. Consequently, the appellate Court reversed the , in favour of plaintiff. Assailing the above findings of appellate court, the learned Government Pleader for the appellant argued that the trial Court’s findings the land plans supported the case of acquisition in 1890, even though no notification was produced. Reliance was also placed on oral testimony of the SDO regarding the long existence Conversely, counsel for the plaintiffs supported the findings of the Appellate Court, emphasizing that revenue entries carried a presumption of truth, which the defendant failed to rebut. The Appellate Court rightly relied upon Jamabandis 60 onwards, which recorded the plaintiffs’ predecessors as cultivation. Under Section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, entries in the revenue record carry a presumption of truth unless o documentary evidence to displace these entries. The mere oral testimony of the SDO was insufficient. The land plans (Ex.D1 and D2), even if considered, do not establish ownership or acquisition. In fact, Khasra No. 224 is not shown in construction of the Sirsa Branch Canal. It was pleaded that a regulation hut and staff quarters had been built thereon and, since the land already it, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to establish ownership and that the defendant was owner in possession. The Appellate Court, however, on appreciation of revenue records, found that the plaintiffs and their predecessors were consistently 60. It noted that no acquisition notification had been produced by the State, and the land plans (Ex.D1 and D2) relied upon by the defendant did not confer ownership, nor did they even e Court reversed the he learned Government Pleader for the appellant argued that the trial Court’s findings the land plans supported the case of acquisition in 1890, even though no notification was produced. Reliance was also placed on oral testimony of the SDO regarding the long existence pported the findings of a amabandis 60 onwards, which recorded the plaintiffs’ predecessors as Land Revenue Act, entries in the revenue record carry a presumption of truth unless o documentary evidence to displace The land plans (Ex.D1 and D2), even if considered, do not establish ownership or acquisition. In fact, Khasra No. 224 is not shown in JITEN SHARMA 2025.09.05 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 1216 of 2000 them. The trial plans, which is a statutory presumption reserved for revenue entries, not for such maps. 8. notification dated 08.04.1890, record. In absence of acquisition proceedings or other evidence of transfer of title, the State could not establish ownership. Mere long possession of the defendant also does not ripen into ownership against the recorded titl holders. 9. that the plaintiffs were owners of the suit land and entitled to possession. The findings are supported by cogent evidence and legal principles. No perversity or substantial q appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed. 05.09.2025 Jiten RSA No. 1216 of 2000 Page N: 3 of 3 them. The trial Court erred in attaching presumption of correctness to such plans, which is a statutory presumption reserved for revenue entries, not maps. Further, though a reference was made notification dated 08.04.1890, but no such notification was pro record. In absence of acquisition proceedings or other evidence of transfer of title, the State could not establish ownership. Mere long possession of the defendant also does not ripen into ownership against the recorded titl As such, it is held that the First Appellate Court correctly held that the plaintiffs were owners of the suit land and entitled to possession. The findings are supported by cogent evidence and legal principles. No perversity or substantial question of law arises for consideration in second Accordingly, the appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed. Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Court erred in attaching presumption of correctness to such plans, which is a statutory presumption reserved for revenue entries, not Further, though a reference was made by the trial court to a h notification was produced on record. In absence of acquisition proceedings or other evidence of transfer of title, the State could not establish ownership. Mere long possession of the defendant also does not ripen into ownership against the recorded title he First Appellate Court correctly held that the plaintiffs were owners of the suit land and entitled to possession. The findings are supported by cogent evidence and legal principles. No uestion of law arises for consideration in second Accordingly, the appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No Court erred in attaching presumption of correctness to such plans, which is a statutory presumption reserved for revenue entries, not to a on record. In absence of acquisition proceedings or other evidence of transfer of title, the State could not establish ownership. Mere long possession of e he First Appellate Court correctly held that the plaintiffs were owners of the suit land and entitled to possession. The findings are supported by cogent evidence and legal principles. No uestion of law arises for consideration in second JITEN SHARMA 2025.09.05 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document