- (1.) The following three questions of law call for determination by this Full Bench : 1. Whether Banjar Qadim land falling in Shamlat Taraf or Shamlat Patti is governed by sub-clause (5) of clause (g) or sub-clause (3); 2. Does the proviso after sub-clause (5) only governs this sub-clause also ? and 3. Whether the view of law taken in 1962 P.L.R. 730 proceeds on a correct interpretation of the expression "or the benefit of the village community or a part thereof or for common purposes of the village" occurring in sub-clause (3) of clause (g) of Section 2 ? The reference has been made in the following circumstances.
(2.) Pritam Singh and others, proprietors of land in Patti Sadhrawar, village Sadhrawar, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, filed a suit for declaration that the suit land measuring 617 Bighas 11 Biswas was not Shamlat deh and did not vest in the Village Panchayat. Permanent injunction to the effect that the Gram Panchayat and the Gram Sabha in favour of some of the defendants was also prayed for. Besides, possession of the land which had been leased out by the Gram Panchayat and the Gram Sabha in favour of some of the defendants was also prayed for. The suit was contested by the Gram Panchayat and other respondents who were lessees from the Gram Panchayat. It was contended by the latter that the suit land was Shamlat as defined in sub-clause (g) of Section 2 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act. 1961 (hereinafter called the 1961 Act) and as such, vested in the Gram Panchayat and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the same. In view of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the suit land does not vest in the Gram Panchayat ? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit land ? The suit was decreed by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs and it was held that the suit land was Shamlat Patti Sadhrawar and was entered as Banjar Qadim in the revenue record and that Sub-clause (5) of Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act, was applicable to such a land according to which the suit land did not vest in the Gram Panchayat. Appeals filed by the Gram Panchayat and the lessees were also dismissed. Against the said judgment, two regular second appeals were filed in this Court vide Regular Second Appeal Nos. 1327 and 1239 of 1973. Both these appeals were heard by Tewatia, J., on February 22, 1974. The learned Judge did not agree with the decision of Mahajan, J., in C-operative Society of Improvement of Shamilat Patti Harnam Singh Lambardar of Village Khanni and another v. Gram Panchayat of Village Khanni,1962 PunLR 730, and agreed with ratio of the decision in Sehaj Ram and others v. Shrimati Sorti and others, 1970 PunLJ 77, decided by Pandit, J. According to the learned Judge, the question of law of general importance was likely to arise in a number of cases and, therefore, directed the case to be referred to a larger Bench. Both the appeals were heard by a Division Bench comprising of Gujral, J., (as he then was) and Tewatia, J., on December 5, 1974. Both the learned Judges also were of the opinion that the three questions reproduced above, were of considerable complexity and importance and were likely to affect a large number of cases and directed that the matter may be referred to a Full Bench.
(3.) Compromise was arrived at in Regular Second Appeal No. 1327 of 1973. As a result, the same has been dismissed as withdrawn. Arguments have been heard in the other appeal, namely, Regular Second Appeal No. 1239 of 1973.;