SHIV CHARAN SINGH Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT NARIKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Sangrur, dated May 1, 1969.

(2.) BRIEFLY, the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs are joint owners and in possession of the land in dispute. The Naib Tahsildar, Malerkotla, mutated the land in dispute in favour of Nagar Panchayat Narike vide mutation No. 78, on the ground that it was shamlat deh and vested in the Nagar Panchayat by virtue of the Pepsu Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Pepsu Act' ). In fact, the land was not used for common purposes of the residents of the village and was not a shamlat deh. The plaintiffs who were earlier in possession of the land continued to be in possession thereof as owners even now. Shiv Charan Singh and Baljit Singh, plaintiffs, filed an application, dated March 23, 1962, before the Gram Panchayat, stating that the land in dispute has been wrongly shown as shamlat deh and that the Gram Panchayat had no right to give it on lease. Thereafter, the Gram Panchayat sought the advice of Block Development Officer, Malerkotla, on that matter. He wrote to it that the provisions of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') were applicable and that the Gram Panchayat should apply to the Collector for obtaining possession of the land. Land measuring 27 Bighas and 6 Biswas bearing Khasra Nos. 463, 464, 466 and 468, out of the land in dispute is under cultivation of Devinder Kumar, plaintiff No. 17. The Gram Panchayat, Narike, defendant No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Panchayat') wanted to take forcible possession of the property in suit. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration to the effect that the property in dispute is jointly owned and possessed by the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 and that the same is no a shamlat deh. They also prayed for grant of permanent injunction prayed for grant of permanent injunction restraining the Panchayat from interfering with their possession or leasing out or transferring the same in any way. The suit was contested by the Panchayat which inter alia pleaded that the mutation had been rightly and lawfully sanctioned in its favour as the same was shamlat deh, that it was owned and possessed by it, that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, that the suit was bad for non-joined of parties, that it was not within jurisdiction and that it was properly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:--

(3.) WHETHER suit is within limitation ?