SUNDER Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT ADHOYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was the owner of the land in dispute and prayed for an injunction against the Gram Panchayat to the effect that it should not lease it out to some other persons. The learned Courts below have given concurrent findings on the points that the appellant was a co-sharer, he was in possession of the land since 1935, he has been paying the land revenue and that the land was not in excess of his share of the shamilat deh. Since the land was shown as Banjar Qadim in the revenue records, the Courts below held that such land could not be in the cultivating possession of the appellants. On this ground alone, it was held that the land in dispute fell within the definition of shamilat land as given in Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 .

(2.) The respondents have nowhere led any evidence to show that this land was being used for the common purposes of the village. On the other hand, the revenue record shows that the land was in possession of the appellant which implies that he was the sole recipient of the benefits accruing therefrom. In R.S.A. No. 1239 of 1973, Gram Panchayat, Sadhraur and another v. Baldev Singh and others, 1977 PunLJ 276 decided on November 10, 1976 : F.B., it was held by a Full Bench of this Court that even if the land in possession of a co-sharer in accordance with his share is shown as Banjar Qadim in the land revenue record, it cannot be regarded as shamilat land unless the revenue record shows that it was being used for the common purposes of the village. I am bound to follow this view with respect.

(3.) For the reasons mentioned above, I allow this appeal and set aside the judgments and the decrees passed by the Courts below and decree the claim of the appellant. No costs.