SHIV CHARAN SINGH Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT NARIKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHIV Charan Singh and others have filed this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated Jan. 31, 1974, by which their appeal was dismissed with costs.

(2.) THE facts of the case may briefly be stated thus:-The plaintiffs--appellants are joint owners and in possession of the land in dispute. The Naib Tehsildar, Malerkotla, mutated the land in dispute in favour of Nagpur Panchayat Narike vide mutation No. 78 on the ground that it was shamlat deh and vested in the Nagar Panchayat by virtue of the Pepsu Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as the Pepsu Act ). It has been averred that the land was not used for common purposes of the residents of the village and was not shamlat deh; that the plaintiffs who were in possession of the land continue to be in possession thereof as owners even now; that Shiv Charan Singh and Baljit Singh, plaintiffs filed an application dated March 23, 1962, before the Gram Panchayat stating that the land in dispute had been wrongly shown as shamlat deh; that thereafter the Gram Panchayat sought the advice of the Block Development Officer, Malerkotla, in that matter, that the said officer informed the Gram Panchayat that the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Punjab Act) were applicable and the Gram Panchayat should apply to the Collector for obtaining possession of the land; and that on the basis of the said intimation of Panchayat (defendant No. 1) wanted to take forcible possession of the land in dispute. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the land in dispute was jointly owned and possessed by them and that the same was not shamlat deh. They also prayed for grant of permanent injunction restraining the Panchayat from interfering with their possession of leasing out or transferring the same in any way. The suit was contested by the Panchayat.

(3.) THE trial Court held that the property in dispute was shamlat deh and the same has lawfully vested in the Gram Panchayat and that the suit was within limitation. In view of the said findings the suit was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal (R. F. A. No. 370 of 1969) in this Court, but did not succeed. The appeal, as earlier observed, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.