MUNICIPALITY, TARAORI Vs. MANSA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgments and decrees dated 27.2.1984 and 24.9.1984 passed respectively by the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Karnal (hereinafter described as 'the trial Court') and the District Judge, Karnal (referred to hereinafter as 'the first appellate Court') vide which the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents was decreed and the appeal of the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 - appellants was dismissed.

(2.) The plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of agricultural land measuring 720 kanals and 12 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Taraori and fully detailed in the jamabandi for the year 1970-71 as well as in paragraph 2 of the plaint. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs were proprietors of shamlat deh of revenue estate of Taraori; that they are numerous in number; that they have common interest in the suit land; that the suit is being filed in representative capacity; that the land in dispute being shamlat deh vested in the Gram Panchayat under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1953 (for short, 'the 1953 Act'); that Taraori was declared to be a municipal area and resultantly, the Gram Panchayat ceased to exist and, therefore, the provisions of the 1953 Act, as amended by the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for brevity, 'the 1961 Act') did not have any application; that rather the suit land was vested in the Municipal Committee, Taraori in view of the provisions of the Haryana Municipal Common Lands Regulation Act, 1974 (called hereinafter as 'the 1974 Act') and an Administrator was appointed; that the 1974 Act was declared as null & void and inoperative by a Full Bench judgment in Rajinder Parshad and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., 1983 3 SCC 452 and, therefore, the land in disputed vested in Municipality, Taraori, reverted back to the proprietors, the original owners of the shamlat deh; that defendant Nos. 1 & 2 had, without any authority, had leased out the suit land to defendant Nos. 3 to 8; that the defendants were asked to admit the claim of the plaintiffs, but to no effect and hence, the suit.

(3.) In their written statement, defendant Nos. 1 & 2 contested the suit while taking a number of preliminary objections and pleaded that the plaintiffs had no right over the suit land; that the land in dispute cannot revert back to the proprietors as the same was reserved during consolidation and every kind of property belonging to the Gram Panchayat vested in the Municipality and that there is no provision of law at all under which the land in dispute reverts back to the plaintiffs.