ATMA RAM Vs. GRAM SABHA DIWANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed by Atma Ram plaintiff against the judgment of the District Judge, Karnal, dated June 3, 1967, affirming the decree of the trial Court as per which the suit of the appellant was dismissed.

(2.) There is hardly any dispute in regard to facts. The present suit was filed by the appellant seeking permanent injunction against the respondent restraining it from interfering with his possession of the suit land, which he claimed to have for the last twenty years. The case of appellant is that he is co-sharer of the village shamilat deh and is in cultivating possession of the land in suit, which is a part of shamilat area. According to him, the land is not covered by the definition of shamilat deh in view of Section 2(g)(iv) and 2(g)(viii) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act (hereinafter called the Act). On the suit being contested by the Gram Sabha, the trial Court framed the issues in the matter, one relating to the alleged possession of the appellant and the other in regard to his claim for ownership of the land in view of the facts mentioned above. Both these issues were decided against the appellant by the Court and the suit was dismissed. The appellate Court as already stated, affirmed this decision.

(3.) It is significant to note that though at the trial stage, the appellant urged that the disputed property fell within the definition as contained in Section 2(g)(viii) of the Act (which contention was not accepted by the trial Court), at the appellate stage it was conceded that this provision of law was not applicable to the suit property. The concession was rightly made as the possession of the appellant was not even claimed with effect from the crucial date, i.e., January 26, 1950. The appellant, however, changed his weapon at the stage of first appeal by seeking recourse to Section 4(3)(ii) of the Act. The said provision is an exception to the general rule in regard to the vesting of rights of shamilat land in the Panchayat, the same being that the rights of persons in cultivating possession of the shamilat deh for more than twelve years without payment of rent etc. were protected. Obviously, the aforesaid period of twelve years had to be reckoned back from the date of the enforcement of the Act. The case of the appellant, even if taken at its best, as in his own deposition, is that he was in himself reclaimed the land for the first time. His possession does not, therefore, date back to more than twelve years before the coming into force of the Act. Mr. Harbhagwan Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, has however, contended that the period for which the predecessors-in-interest of the appellant were in possession, as shown in the revenue record, may also be added for this purpose. There is no warrant for this course being adopted. The concession granted in this behalf is only to persons who are in cultivating possession of the shamilat deh. The appellant having admitted that he had himself reclaimed the land, his predecessors-in-interest even if shown in the revenue record, as shareholders in the shamilat land, cannot be deemed to be in cultivating possession, as required by law. The contention as aforesaid was, therefore, rightly overruled by the lower appellate Court.