PURAN Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT FARIDABAD
LAWS(SC)-2006-1-56
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on January 30,2006

PURAN Appellant
VERSUS
GRAM PANCHAYAT, FARIDABAD Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

PARVATHAMMA VS. UMA [LAWS(KAR)-2010-11-31] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN LAL VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2011-8-105] [REFERRED TO]
TARA CHAND VS. GRAM PANCHAYAT JHUPA KHURD [LAWS(SC)-2012-11-10] [REFERRED TO]
RUDRA DUTT VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2014-5-186] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

R. V. Raveendran, J. - (1.)This is a plaintiffs appeal against the judgment dated 19.9.2002 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal No.3689 of 2002 confirming the judgment and decree of the first appellate court dated 6.8.2002 allowing defendants appeal and dismissing the plaintiffs suit. The first appeal was filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 16.1.2002 in civil Suit No. 1083/1996 on the file of civil Judge, Junior Division, Palwal decreeing the suit for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the suit land (agricultural land measuring 70 Kanals and 1 Marla situated within the revenue estate of village Hassapur, Tehsil Palwal, district Faridabad, described in the plaint).
(2.)The appellants filed the said suit alleging that a century prior to the filing of the suit, the suit land had been entrusted by the defendant/owners of the land, to their (Appellants) forefathers for cultivation on the understanding that they and their successors would not be evicted therefrom; that as per the local custom, such tenants became full fledged owners by acquiring occupancy rights under Sections 5 and 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (for short the Tenancy Act) read with Section 3 of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953 (for short the Proprietary Rights Act). The appellants contended that though the name of respondent Gram Panchayat was entered as the owner of the suit land in the revenue records, the respondent had no right, title or interest therein.
(3.)The suit was contested by the respondent Panchayat. Respondent alleged that the suit land, being part of Shamilat deh, vested in it under Section 4(1) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (for short the Common Lands Act). It was also pointed out that as the Gram Panchayat itself came into existence in or about the year 1952, the question of the respondent Panchayat entering into any agreement with the forefathers of appellants about 100 years prior to the suit, as alleged by the appellants, did not arise. The Gram Panchayat contended that neither the plaintiffs nor their predecessors had cultivated the suit land at any point of time prior to the Common Lands Act came into force, nor secured any occupancy rights at any time under any law or local custom; and that the suit was an attempt to grab a large area of valuable land belonging to the Gram Panchayat.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.