JOGI RAM Vs. COLLECTOR-CUM-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will dispose of three Writ Petitions 1589 and 11095 of 1990 and 1564 of 1991 as common questions of law and fact arise in them. In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties, facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition 11095 of 1990 in which the main arguments were advanced.

(2.) THE facts are few and simple. The petitioners are proprietors of village Bodhni, Tehsil Guiha, District Kurukshetra in the State of Haryana and the petition has been filed by petitioners 1 to 4 on their on behalf and as representatives of the proprietory body of the village. It is stated that in their capacity as proprietors of the village, they have a share in the shamlat land of the village in accordance with their respective ownership areas i. e. Hasab Rasab Khewat and their rights in the village common land according to their khewat areas are also recorded in the revenue records. The case of -the petitioners is that for some time entire shamlat land of the village measuring 9537 kanals 18 marlas was mutated in the name of the Gram Panchayat respondent but later on the mistake was corseted and an area measuring 4900 kanals- 12 marlas out of the total shamlat land was shown as vested in the Gram Panchayat according to the jamabandi for the, year 1982-83 and art area measuring 4637 kanals -6 marlas was divested from the Gram panchayat and revested in the proprietory body. Their further plea is that the petitioners-have been in possession of this area since the times of their fore fathers and their possession was not disturbed even during the short period when the area of shamlat land was wrongly mutated in favour of the Gram Panchayat. They claim that their possession over the land measuring 4637 kanals-6 marlas has been open, notorious and continuous and thus, the petitioners are owners in possession's of this area having become owners there of by adverse possession since their possession has been for more than 12 years after the commencement of the Shamlat Law.

(3.) ON June 30, 1987, the petitioners filed a suit under section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act 1961 applicable to the State of Haryana and as amended by the Haryana Act 2 of 1981 (hereinafter called 'the Act') praying for a decree for declaration to the effect that the proprietors of village Bodhni are owners in joint possession of land measuring 4637 kanals-6 marlas out of the total shamlat land and for a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the Gram Panchayat-respondent from dispossessing or ejecting them in any manner from the land in dispute. This prayer made in the suit was mainly based on the ground that the petitioners (proprietors) had become owners of the land by adverse possession having remained in possession for a continuous period of more than 1. 2 years. On receipt of notice, the Gram Panchayat and respondents No. 4 to 18 who were allowed to be impleaded as respondents in the suit contested the same and on the pleadings of the parties as many as twelve issues were framed. Issue No. 11 pertained to limitation which was in the following terms :" whether the suit is time barred ? OPD" The issue relating to limitation was treated as preliminary one and the same was decided by the Assistant Collector Grade-I vide his order dated January 24, 1989 in favour of the petitioners holding that the suit was within time and thus, maintainable. Against this order of the Assistant Collector Grade-I, the Gram Panchayat and some of the other respondents herein filed an appeal before the Collector, Kurukshetra who by an order dated May 2, 1990 allowed the same and held; that the suit filed by the plaintiffs-proprietors of the village was barred by limitation under section 13-A of the Act. It is this order of the Collector which has been impugned in the present writ petition.