RAM BAHU Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Four land-owners of village Indri, tehsil Nuh, district Gurgaon had filed a suit under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure on behalf of the entire proprietary body against the Gram Panchayat (the Gram Sabha) of their village for a declaration that the plaintiffs were the owners of the land and that it had not vested in the defendant-Gram Panchayat. The suit had been dismissed by the trial Court and an appeal filed by the plaintiffs had not met with any better results in the lower appellate Court. The plaintiffs have, therefore, come up in second appeal.

(2.) Jamabandis, Exhibits, P. 6 for 1938-39 and P. 5 for 1953-54, show that the land is Shamilat Deh of the village and that the proprietors have shares in it in proportion to their holdings. The land is, however, shown to be in the possession of the Government in 1938-39 and in the possession of the Forest Department in 1953-54. The land is assessed to land revenue and as it is not a part of the Abadi Deh, it would fall within the definition of 'Shamilat Deh' as given in Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter briefly referred to as 'the Act'). According to Section 4 of the said Act, this land would vest in the defendant-Gram Panchayat unless the appellants could bring their case within any one of the exceptions given under clause (g) of Section 2 of the Act. Shri Jain, the learned counsel for the appellants, wants to bring his case in exception (viii) to clause (g) ibid. Relevant portions of the definition of 'Shamilat Deh' in Section 2 of the Act are as follows :-

(3.) Shri Jain argues that the entire proprietary body were the owners of the land and were in possession through the Forest Department of the Government which was in occupation as a lessee or tenant of the proprietary body of the village. In this connection, he relies on a Division Bench ruling of this Court in Gram Panchayat Sidhbari, Tehsil Kangra v. Sukh Ram Dass,1963 PunLR 1043, wherein it was held that the object of Section 2(g)(viii) of the Act is to protect the possession of a co-sharer or the co-sharers who are actually cultivating the land. It was hardly material whether the possession was of one co-sharer or a number of co-sharers. Reliance is also placed on the following observations of a Single Bench of this Court in Amar Nath and others v. Gram Panchayat etc.,1967 CurLJ 548(Punjab and Haryana) :-