KHIALI RAM Vs. SUBEDAR MAST RAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent proprietors, who are eight in number, in execution of their decree for possession against the appellant Khiali Ram passed on 18th of August, 1953, started execution proceedings on 6th of August, 1960. The objections of the judgment -debtor were dismissed by the executing Court on 1st of May, 1961. The judgment -debtor preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Hoshiarpur, and at the time of arguments an objection was raised that the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, (hereinafter called the Act) enforced with effect from 22nd of April, 1961, had vested the land of which possession was claimed, in the Panchayat which alone could enforce the decree against. the judgment -bebtor. It does not appear to have been disputed that the land which had been in possession of the judgment -debtor was shamilat tikka and under clause (g) of section 2 of the Act, shamilat tikkas are included in the shamilat deh. Section 3 of the Act gives retrospective operation to clause (s) of section 2 of the Act with effect from 1954 when the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act of 1954 was first promulgated. Under sub -section (1) of section 4 of the Act:

(2.) IN further appeal to this Court, the only point which has now been urged by Mr. Mahajan is that the decree which was passed against the appellant has really become inexecutable at the instance of the decree -holder proprietors, by virtue of the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the Act read with clause (g) of section 2. In support of this contention, the learned counsel has relied on the support of two decisions of the Supreme Court. In Raja Sailenira Narayan Bhanj Deo v. Kumar Jagat Kishore Prasad Narayan Singh : A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 914, it was held that the Land Reforms Act passed by the State of Bihar made the decree for redemption which had been passed earlier inexecutable and infructuous. The tenures had vested in the State of Bihar and the mortgagee under the Act had no longer any interest in the tenures nor was he in possession of them. Their Lordships accordingly reached the conclusion that the mortgagee could not carry out the decree by reconveying the tenures to the mortgagor or put him into possession. The mortgaged property having vested in the State in pursuance of the provisions of the Land Reforms Act, the right to redeem under the redemption decree had become infructuous. On a parity of reasoning, it has been argued that the shamilat likka in respect of which a decree for possession had been obtained by the decree -holders no longer vested in the proprietary body but the Panchayat had become its owner in whom it vested under section 4 of the Act. The panchayat alone could, therefore, enforce its right of possession and the judgement debtor could not be ejected at the instance of the proprietors who had obtained the decree for possession. The Panchayat could, if it is so minded, claim the right of possession as the land in dispute now vests absolutely in it.

(3.) IT follows, therefore, that the Panchayat in whom the proprietary rights now vest in pursuance of section 4 of the Act alone has the right to the possession of the land and the proprietors under the decree which was passed before the Act have ceased to have any right in this shamilat tikka, and as observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, the proprietor's right even under the decree to obtain possession also vests in the Panchayat.