M.L. Singhal, J., - (1.) This revision has been filed by Mange Ram and others under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby they have prayed for the quashing; and setting aside of order dated 22.1.2001 Annexure P -5 passed by Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Haryana (respondent No. 1) and also orders dated 6.10.2000 and 18.9.2000 Annexure P -3 and P -2 passed respectively by respondent No. 2 (Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak) and respondent No. 3 (Collector, District Panipat), whereby their prayer for amendment had been declined by them. Facts.
(2.) In the year 1980, suit was instituted under the then existing Sec. 13 -B of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The said suit was dismissed on 16.3.99 by Assistant Collector First Grade, Panipat. During the pendency of the appeal before the Collector, Panipat against the said order dated 16.3.99, application for the amendment of the plaint was filed which was dismissed on 18.9.2000. Against the said order dated 18.9.2000, revision was filed by Pala Ram and others which was dismissed by Commissioner, Rohiak Division, Rohtak on 6.10.2000. Pala Ram and others went to the Financial Commissioner challenging the order dated 18.9.2000 of the Collector and that of the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak dated 6.10.2000. What weighed with them while dismissing the application of Pal Ram etc. for amendment of the plaint inter alia was the inordinate delay in the filing of the application for amendment. It was felt by all these authorities that if amendments were allowed, that will result in the de novo trial of the suit. Another factor that weighed with them was that through amendment, even substitution of paras 3 and 5, apart from amendment of paras 2 and 4 was also prayed and even the prayer was sought to be amended and if that was allowed to be done, there will be change in the nature of the suit. It was felt by them that under the garb of amendment, change in the nature of the suit was not permissible. Prayer for amendment of the plaint was made about 20 years which was taken to be highly belated and not genuine.
(3.) Pala Ram and others filed application (suit under Sec. 13 B, as it was existing then, of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 for self and on behalf of the other proprietors of the village in the court of Assistant Collector First Grade, Panipat against the grain panchayat of village Assan Kalan through its Sarpanch in the year 1980. It was averred by them that according to the Jamabandi of the year 1907 -08, land measuring 9237 bigha 37 biswas was shamilat deh and was in possession of the proprietors of village Assan Kalan as co -sharers comprising Gurjjars (Both Hindus and Muslims), Muslim, Rajputs and Brahmins. It was alleged in the plaint that in this land Muslim Rajputs had 2 shares, Gujjars and Brahmins had 5 shares, Padho Pana had 2 shares, Rajputan Pana had 2 shares and Gulman Pana had 3 share. This land was never used for common purposes of the village. As per the Jamabandi of the year 1945 -46, the disputed land was Nehri, Chahi and Barani. After partition of the country, the Muslim Rajput proprietors left the village and area owned by them as per their share was allotted to the persons who had come on migration to this part of the country from West Punjab and the persons of Madho Pana and Muslim Pana became the owners of the remaining land measuring 8596 bigha 9 biswas. The persons who had come from Pakistan did not have any share in this land and the proprietors of Madho Pana, Glman Pana became owners of 5/7 share. It was further averred that majority of the residents of the village are illiterate and in the revenue record the entry of the land continued as shamilat deh and according to mutation No. 1184 dated 27.12.61, this land was made to vest in the gram panchayat. It was averred that this land does not fall within the ambit of Shamilar deh Mutation No. 1184 is illegal. In lieu of old numbers of consolidation of holdings, land measuring 9029 kanals 16 marlas was carved out. It was prayed that decree be passed in favour of Madho Pana and Gulman Pana regarding land measuring 9029 kanal 16 marla. Assistant Collector First Grade, Panipat framed among others, the following issues: - 1. Whether the land is owned and possessed by the proprietary body of Pana Madho, Pana Gulman, and Pana Rajputan of village Assan Kalan as co -sharers in the manner as alleged in para No. 2 of the plaint? OPP 2. Whether the local non evacuee proprietors remained owners of the land measuring 8596 bigha 9 biswa? OPP 3. Whether the suit land never vested in the shamilat deh? OPP;