only a share in the entire khasra number to the extent of 5 kanal. Hence, they have become owners in the entire land in dispute. Land in dispute is an agricultural land. Though plea has been taken by petitioners-defendants that they are in actual possession of specific portion, however, no prima facie evidence has been adduced in order to prove the specific possession. Moreover the sale deed was executed in favour of present petitioners after obtaining no objection certificate from District Town Planner, Sonepat, and it was one of the condition of the sale that purchaser would use the said land for agriculture purpose only and for changing the land use, necessary permission would have to be obtained from the competent authority and an affidavit in this regard was also filed by present petitioners-defendants through defendant no.1 before District Town Planner, Sonepat. Admittedly, no such permission was sought by them for changing the nature of the land in dispute by raising construction. Hence, it has been rightly observed by learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat, that present petitioners have failed to show prima facie case that they are in exclusive possession of the land in dispute or that they had sought permission to raise construction over the said land.
