Prem Chand Pandit, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit brought by Sehaj Ram and three others, residents of village Rohad, District Rohtak, against Man Singh and others of that very village, for a declaration to the effect that agricultural land measuring 537 Kanals 1 Maria, situate in that village, was the property of the Gram Panchayat and that the Defendants had no right to get it partitioned. Their allegations were that the said land was Shamilat of Thola Ramian. It was lying Banjar up to 26th January, 1950, and was being used for the common benefit of the entire village. After 1955, a part of it was brought under cultivation by some of the proprietors including the Plaintiffs. According to the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, hereinafter called the 1961 Act, the land fell within the definition of 'Shamilat Deh' and vested in the Gram Panchayat. The proprietors of Thola Ramian had no connection with the land. The Defendants, however, made an application to the Revenue Officer for partition of the land. The Plaintiffs objected that as the land vested in the Gram Panchayat, it could not be partitioned. The Revenue Officer, on 7th December, 1963, ordered that the land be partitioned. That necessitated the filing of the present suit in January, 1964. It might be mentioned that Gram Sabha, Rohat, and Gram Panchayat, Rohat. were impleaded as Defendants Nos. 44 and 45.
(2.) THE suit was resisted by some of the Defendants and they pleaded inter alia that the land in question was not need for the benefit of the entire village: that part of it was being cultivated by some of the proprietors of the Thola and the remaining was in the joint possession of the entire proprietary body of the Thola; that the land did not vest in the Gram Panchayat, because it did not come within the definition of 'Shamilat Deh'; and that the Plaintiffs had no locus standi to bring the suit, because they did not in any way represent the Gram Panchayat. It was also averred that the suit was not maintainable in the present form. The trial Judge came to the conclusion that since the Plaintiffs themselves were not claiming any title to the land in question and their case was that it vested in the Gram Panchayat, they had no locus standi to bring a declaratory suit under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act and it did not lie in the present form. It was held that the land in dispute was not 'Shamilat Deh' within the meaning of that expression in 1961, Act and it, therefore, did not vest in the Gram Panchayat. The Defendants were in possession of the land as owners of Thola Ramian and, therefore, could claim partition of the said land. As a result of these findings, the suit was dismissed.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by that decision, the Plaintiffs went in appeal before the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Rohtak, who confirmed the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. The Plaintiffs have come to this Court in second appeal.;