R.S. Narula, J. - (1.) THE true scope and correct construction of the expression "river action" as used in the first exception to the statutory definition of "shamilat deh" contained in Clause (g) of Section 2 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act (18 of 1961) (hereinafter called the 1961 Act) calls for decision in this Regular First Appeal against the judgment and decree of the Court of Shri Pritpal Singh, Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Sonepat, dated March 31, 1964. The material facts giving rise to this appeal are not in dispute and may be noticed at this stage.
(2.) VILLAGES Janti Khurd and Janti Kalan have a common Gram Panchayat and Gram Sabha which are known as Gram Panchayat Janti Kalan and Gram Sabha Janti Kalan. Agricultural land measuring 590 Kanals 13 Marias situate within the area of village Janti Khurd, tahsil Sonepat, district Rohtak, was entered in the relevant revenue records as part of shamilat deh of the said village. The whole of the said land was and continues to be in the possession of Plaintiff -Appellants and Defendant -Respondent No. 10 as co -sharers. After the enforcement of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953 (1 of 1954) (hereinafter called the 1954 Act), the ownership of the land in dispute was entered in the name of the Gram Panchayat of village Janti Kalan, and mutation No. 146 in respect of that entry was sanctioned on February 10, 1955. On March 16, 1963, the Appellants filed the suit from which this appeal has arisen in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Sonepat for a declaration to the effect that the Plaintiff -Appellants and Defendant -Respondent No. 10 were the absolute owners of the land in suit (details of which are given in paragraph 2 of the plaint), and that no rights relating to the said land had vested in the Gram Panchayat and, therefore, Defendant -Respondents 1 to 9 had no right to dispossess the Plaintiffs from the land in question either forcibly or by any other means. The various grounds on which exemption from the vesting of the land in dispute (though recorded as a part of the shamilat deh) in the Panchayat was claimed, were set out in paragraph 4 of the plaint. Out of those grounds, only the first and the second ground are now relevant. These are set out below: (a) Janti Khurd is not a separate village, but is a pana, i.e., sub -division of village Janti Kalan. The said village is situate on the bank of river Jamuna. The entire area of the village including the land in suit is flooded every year with the water of river Jamuna. On account of floods, there are alluvions and dilutions in the area of the village. The land in dispute, along with other area of the village remains under the action of river Jamuna. The land in dispute is not entered in the revenue record as pasture, pond or playground or reserve for any common purpose rather it is entered as shamilat deh. (b) The Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 10 have been cultivating the land in suit since before the 26th January, 1950 -Even severally they have never been in possession of the land in suit more than their own share. Land revenue is levied on the land in suit. The suit was resisted by Defendant -Respondents Nos. 1 to 9, who are the Gram Sabha and the Gram Panchayat of village Janti Kalan and the various members of the said Panchayat. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court first framed certain preliminary issues relating to the maintainability of the suit which were all disposed of in favour of the Plaintiff -Appellants by the order of the trial Court, dated August 20, 1963. The following issues on merits were then framed on August 21, 1963: (i) Whether the Plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the land in suit? (ii) Whether the land in suit has not vested in Gram Panchayat constituted in the villages for the reasons stated in the plaint? (iii) Whether the Plaintiffs are estopped from bringing this suit by their acts and conduct. By its judgment under appeal the trial Court held that the Plaintiffs were in possession of the disputed land. The claim under the first exception to Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act was repelled as it was held that the land was not subject to "river action". The claim of the Plaintiff -Appellants under exception (viii) to Clause (g) of Section 2 was allowed in respect of the land which satisfied the requirements of that exception. As a result, a declaratory decree, as claimed, was passed in favour of the Plaintiff -Appellants against Defendant -Respondents Nos. 1 to 9 in respect of that portion of land to which exception (viii) applied, but the suit as regards the rest of the land was dismissed. Parties were left to bear their own costs.
(3.) NOT satisfied with the decree of the trial Court, the Plaintiffs have come up in this appeal to contest the finding of the trial Court on issue No. 2. Section 3 of the 1954 Act provides that all rights, title and interests whatever in the land which is included in the shamilat deh of any village, shall, on the appointed date, vest in a Panchayat having jurisdiction over the village. The land in dispute was deemed to have vested in the Respondent -Panchayat under the abovesaid provision. The expression "shamilat deh" was not defined in the 1954 Act. In Section 2(g) of the 1961 Act "shamilat deh" was defined to include five different categories of land unless any part of those lands fell within any one or more of the nine exceptions carved out in the definition. After stating that "shamilat deh" includes lands of the five kinds enumerated therein, Section 2(g) provides: but does not include land which: (i) becomes or has become shamilat deh due to river action or has been reserved as shamilat in villages subject to river action except shamilat deh entered as pasture, pond or playground in the revenue records; (ii) to (vii) * * * * * * * * * (viii) was shamilat deh, was assessed to land revenue and has been in the individual cultivating possession of co -sharers not being in excess of their respective shares in such shamilat deh on or before the 26th January, 1950; or (ix)* * * * * * It has already been held by a Division Bench of this Court (Mahajan, J., and myself) in Lakhi Ram v. The Gram Panchayat Gudah , I.L.R. (1968) 1 P&H 301 :, 1968 P.L.R. 106, that the definition of shamilat deh contained in the 1961 Act applies with retrospective effect to the expression "shamilat deh" as used in the 1954 Act.;