- (1.) Petitioners Latur Singh and others filed a suit against the Gram Panchayat claiming that the land in dispute was owned by Thula Kapura. It was claimed that the petitioners were the share-holders in the same and that the land in dispute did not vest in the Gram Panchayat. This claim was resisted by the Gram Panchayat. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Karnal, who tried the suit in accordance with the provisions of Section 13-B of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) :- (1) Whether the disputed land is owned by Thula Kapura and Gram Panchayat has no right in the land in dispute ? (2) Whether the Gram Panchayat has been wrongly shown as owner in the Jamabandi for the year 1966-67 ? (3) Whether the Gram Panchayat has a right to auction the land in dispute under the provisions of Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act ? (4) Whether the plaintiffs can seek a declaration being share-holders of Thula Kapura ? (5) Whether the plaintiffs have a right to get relief of permanent injunction being share-holders of Thula Kapura ? (6) Whether the suit has been properly valued ? (7) Whether the suit lies in the present form ? (8) Whether the suit is bad in view of Order I Rule 8 of C.P.C. (9) Relief.
(2.) As regards issue No. 1 the learned Assistant Collector came to the conclusion that the land in dispute as entered in the Jamabandi Exhibit P.1 for the year 1945-46, has been shown to be charand, in possession of Patti Shamlat Thula Kapura. Accordingly, the learned Assistant Collector recorded a finding that in view of the provisions of Section 2(g) of the Act, the land in dispute is owned by the Gram Panchayat and not by Thula Kapura. On this finding having been recorded, the consequent findings on other issues were recorded and the suit was dismissed.
(3.) The petitioners filed an appeal before the Collector which appeal was dismissed by the Collector holding that there is no provision of appeal made under the provisions of Section 13-B of the Act and thus he had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.;