TULE RAM Vs. RAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's appeal arising out of execution proceedings initiated by the plaintiff on behalf of the village Panchayat in pursuance of a partition decree relating to adadi land.

(2.) The relevant facts giving rise to the present proceedings were that in a suit for partition between the biswadars a preliminary decree followed by a final decree for partition of the abadi land situated in village Bayyanpur, Tehsil Sonepat, was passed by the Senior Subordinate Judge, Rohtak. By the said partition decree the land now in dispute was reserved for common purposes, e.g., building a school, chopal and pond with its catchment area. Before the decree could have been executed the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 was legislated and came into force with the result that the village land reserved for the said common purposes vested in the village Panchayat. Consequently the decree in respect of the land in question was executed by Ram Chand sarpanch of Panchayat, one of parties to the original decree. Tule Ram and others objected. Senior Subordinate Judge, Rohtak, while dismissing the objections of Tule Ram and others directed warrant of possession to issue. The objectors Tule Ram and others have come in appeal against the order of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge dated the 26th October, 1956, dismissing their objections.

(3.) Before me Mr. H.L. Sarin, the learned counsel for the appellants, has urged that in view of Section 3 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 , abadi or part of the abadi land could not and did not vest in the Gram Panchayat, and therefore, no execution could have validly been allowed in the instant case. The question for decision, therefore, is whether abadi deh is covered by Section 3 of the said Act. This aspect has already been subject-matter of two decisions in this court. In Execution Second Appeal No. 162 of 1956 Bishan Narain, J. observed -