TEL RAM Vs. GRAM SABHA MANAKPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Village, in Punjab, as in any other State in the Country, has always been an orthodox unit in the life of the people. It is here that a true picture of our culture and civilisation is available. With a view to promote the Directive Principles of State Policy as enshrined in the Constitution, particularly for the purpose of preserving and promoting village life, a number of legislative measures have been taken from time to time. One of these measures finds place in the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 , an Act intended, as stated in the Preamble, to consolidate and amend the law regulating the rights in shamlat deh and abadi deh. The purpose of the Act was to set at rest all controversies in regard to the rights of the proprietors and non-proprietors of the village in so far as the enjoyment of the common lands of the village is concerned. As a general rule, before the coming into force of the Act, the proprietors of the village were entitled to share in the shamlat deh (one of the categories of the common land), while the non-proprietors had only limited rights, such as, grazing cattle, collecting wood etc., but with the new legislation the land comprising shamlat deh vests in the Panchayat of the village, which is expected to take steps for the management thereof. In regard to the other category of common land, i.e., abadi deh, the non-proprietors who occupied such lands and had constructed their dwelling houses thereon, were granted certain concessions, in that they became absolute owners of the sites underneath their houses. However, in spite of this legislative measure which is by now about fifteen years old, disputes in respect of common land continue to crop up, and the present is a case of that nature.

(2.) The appellants (some of them are legal representatives of one of the deceased-plaintiff) brought a representative suit on behalf of the proprietors of the village against the Gram Sabha and Gram Panchayat of village Manakpur, District Ropar, and another, for a declaration that they are the owners in possession of the suit land measuring 884 Kanals 16 Marlas and that this land should not be deemed to be shamlat deh as defined under Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (referred henceforth for brevity as the Act). The necessary corollary sought to be drawn is that this land did not vest in the Panchayat who may be injuncted from interfering with the use and enjoyment of the land by the plaintiffs. An alternative prayer for possession of the land was also made. The suit was resisted by the Village Panchayat. A declaratory decree and injunction in terms of the prayer made by the appellants was granted by the trial Court, but the same was set aside in appeal, by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala at Ropar. Regular Second Appeal No. 1447 of 1968 was carried by the appellants to this Court and the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The present is another attempt by the appellants to try their luck under clause X of the Letters Patent.

(3.) The marathon battle between the parties has narrowed down the field of controversy to a limited extent so far as the present appeal is concerned. Even before the learned Single Judge, the appellants confined their claim to the disputed property on the basis of Exceptions (i) and (viii) of Section 2(g)(5) of the Act. In regard to Exception (i), there is hardly anything that the learned counsel for the appellant is able to urge in order to substantiate that the land in dispute had ever become shamlat deh due to river action, or had been reserved for that purpose. This exception has, therefore, no application whatsoever and the same had been rightly ruled out of consideration even by the learned Single Judge. We are then left with the only other provisions as contained in clause (viii) to Section 2(g)(5) which may be reproduced for facility of reference :