PEHALAD Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT YADUPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs/appellants' first appeal against the judgment and decree of reversal, dtd. 15/1/1992, passed by the First Appellate Court.

(2.) The plaintiffs/appellants with defendant/respondent no.2 filed a suit for declaration and injunction, dtd. 19/12/1984, claiming to be owners/proprietors in possession of land measuring 532 kanals, 3 marlas situated within revenue estate of village Papri, Tehsil (now District) Palwal, as per their shares recorded in jamabandi for the year 1951-52. It was pleaded that during the consolidation of holdings the suit land had been given to them in lieu of their land comprising in khewat no.1, khatoni no.1 to 27. However, the authorities wrongly entered the name of defendant/respondent no.1/Gram Panchayat, Yadupur, in the revenue record as owner qua this land. This deletion of their names, as also of their predecessors-in-interest, as owners of the suit land was in violation of provisions of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Act of 1948') and the rules made thereunder. There was no area of shamlat deh in village Papri prior to consolidation, nor had the Gram Panchayat ever exercised its right of ownership against the suit land. Once they started threatening to interfere with the plaintiffs/appellants' possession on the basis of wrong revenue entries, the instant suit for declaration was filed.

(3.) In this factual background, learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants argued that the judgment passed by the lower Appellate Court was not sustainable since the Consolidation Scheme, though framed on 13/1/1954, had never come into effect. It was framed for village Papri which was in uninhabited/bey chirag village as per revenue record and never came into existence. Resultantly, the land which was reserved for common purposes by dividing the suit land in the consolidation could never be utilised, as Gram Panchayat of Papri was never formed. Therefore, there was no cause for the plaintiffs/appellants to challenge the Scheme before authorities under the Act of 1948. The cause of action to challenge the order of Consolidation Officer accrued to them only when the Panchayat tried to take over possession of the suit land. And as per the settled law, limitation does not start running from the date of mutation or entry in the revenue record; instead, it starts only when the rights of the parties are threatened. Since plaintiffs/appellants had undisputedly been shown as owners in the revenue record up to 1951-52, and continued to be so, their rights could not be extinguished upon passing of orders by the consolidation authorities which never came into effect. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgments in Hazari and another v. Roop Narain, 1974 AIR (Punjab) 347, and Jaswant Kaur and others v. Faquiria, 2012(4) PLR 713. Lastly, it has been contended by the learned senior counsel that in terms of law laid down by the full Bench in Parkash Singh and others v. Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab and others, 2014(2) RCR(Civil) 721, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the suit, and the plaintiffs/appellants could not have been non-suited for want of jurisdiction.