MAHANT AJUDHYA NATH Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT RAMNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in the decision of this regular second appeal relates to the interpretation of sub-section (3)(ii) of Section 4 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) The dispute between the parties pertains to land measuring 9 Kanals 4 Marlas of agricultural land bearing Khasra Nos. 2120, 2123 and 2124, situated in Prem Nagar, Gurdaspur. This land had been allotted in lieu of Khasra Nos. 1575 and 1580 that formed part of shamlat deh prior to the consolidation of holdings. Before the year 1897 there was a pond in this area. On a notice having been served by the Municipal Committee to fill up the pond, Mahant Ishar Nath, one of the co-sharers, filled it up at his own cost and after levelling the land he brought it under his cultivation. In the year 1914, Shankar Nath and Vasheshar Nath applied for the partition of the shamlat land, including Khasra Nos. 1575 and 1580. Their claim was resisted by Kirpa Ram son of Mahant Ishar Nath, who claimed it to be his exclusive property. On the parties being directed to have their title adjudicated upon by a civil Court, Mahant Kirpa Nath obtained a decree, declaring that the other co-sharers could not get this land partitioned so long as they did not pay their share of the expenses incurred by Mahant Ishar Nath in filling up the land and making it cultivable. The claim of Mahant Kirpa Ram that he was the exclusive owner of this property was, however, rejected. Mahant Kirpa Ram, however, continued in exclusive possession of Khasra Nos. 1575 and 1580 and after his death his son Narinder Nath remained in its exclusive possession.

(3.) In the year 1934 one Jai Nath applied for the partition of the shamlat deh, including Khasra Nos. 1575 and 1580. Though Narinder Nath resisted this suit claiming ownership by adverse possession, his claim of ownership was rejected by the Civil Court, but he got a declaration that being in possession as co-sharer he was entitled to remain in possession ( 1937 AIR(Lahore) 65 .