GRAM SABHA Vs. CHET RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of two appeals - R.S.A. Nos. 299 of 1966 Gram Sabha Bohar v. Chet Ram and 331 of 1966, Gram Sabha, Bohar v. Balbir Singh as they involve a common question of law. For the purpose of this judgment, the facts in R.S.A. No. 299 of 1966 have been taken into consideration.

(2.) The respondent filed this suit for a declaration that he was the owner in possession of land measuring 12 Kanals bearing Killa Nos. 181/7/2, 13/2 and 14 situate at village Bohar, District Rohtak, and for a permanent injunction by way of a consequential relief restraining the appellant from taking possession of the said land. According to the averments in the plaint, the land in dispute forms part of the Shamilat of Pana Melwan and the plaintiff was in its exclusive possession as a co-sharer for the last 20 years. The land was thus not being used for the common purposes of the village community and, therefore, could not vest in the Gram Sabha. Under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 , (hereinafter called the Act), its mutation sanctioned in favour of the Gram Sabha was illegal, ultra vires and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiff.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit and denied the claim of the plaintiff that he was in its exclusive possession for the last 20 years. The land was claimed to have validly vested in the Gram Sabha and the suit was said to be not cognisable by the civil Court. After recording evidence of the parties, the trial Court, held that the suit was cognisable by the civil Court and that the land in dispute was being utilised for the benefit of the village community and has, therefore, vested in the Gram Sabha. The suit was, consequently, dismissed. On appeal, the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Rohtak, vide judgment dated December 10, 1965, reversed the findings of the trial Court on merits and decreed the suit. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the lower appellate Court, defendant-Gram Sabha has come up in this second appeal.