GRAM PANCHAYAT RANWAN Vs. AMAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the possession of agricultural land by a Muafidar through his tenant is within the scope of the words "cultivating possession" as used in Section 4 (3) (ii) of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is the primary question which has been agitated in these two appeals under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Identical question of law and facts are involved and learned counsel are agreed that this judgment will govern both L. P. As. Nos. 187 and 188 of 1967.

(2.) WE would advert to the facts of L. P. A. No. 187 of 1967 only. Amar Nath and others plaintiff -respondents and prior to them their ancestors have been shown in the revenue records as in possession of the land indispute for a long time. However, in the ownership column, the land above said is entered as Shamilat Deh and this entry undisputedly has continued upto date. As early as 1882 in the cultivation's column the ancestors of the plaintiff-respondents and their ancestors have been continuously described as Musfidars in the relevant record. Vide Exhibit P-4 in the yar 1902, the ancestors of the plaintiff -respondents are shown in possession through one Aqual, tenant-at-well and in the relevant entry in the year 1908-09 vide Exhibit P-1, the Muafidars are shown in actual cultivating possession. In the year 1917-18 one Ismail, tenant-at-will is shown in occupation on behalf of Muafidar vide Exhibit P-2 whilst later in the year 1945-46 vide Exhibit P-15 the plaintiff -respondents are shown in possession through their tenant Jagir Singh. This position continued till the year 1958-59.

(3.) IT is the common case of the parties that the plaintiff - respondents or their predecessors-in-interest had never paid any rent to anyone and that they are still described as Muafidars. The suit out of which the proceedings arose was necessitated because in the column of ownership vide mutation No. 308 of 30th March, 1955, the appellant Gram Panchayat of Ranwan was shown as owner and it tried to lease the land in dispute. The suit was brought to challenge the right of the Panchayat to do so and seek a declaration that the plaintiff-respondents were the owners in possession of the property for the last more than 12 years without payment of any rent and further sought an injunction against the Gram Panchayat restraining from them realising any rent from them. This suit was decreed y the trial Court but on appeal the first appellate Court reversed the judgment on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction over any matter arising out of the operation of the Act and further that the disputed land was recorded as Shamilat Deh in the revenue records and Shamilat Deh in the revenue records and vested in the Gram Panchayat because it did not fall within any of the exceptions recorded in sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the Act. Consequently the appeal was accepted and the suit dismissed.