Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

While dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge held that the land in dispute was reserved for common purposes on 25.1.1961 i.e the date on which Consolidation Scheme came into existence and there was nothing in the Civil Court judgment to support that the disputed land of "Taraf Hinduan" did vest in the appellants. Rather by operation of provisions of law, the land in dispute came to vest in the Panchayat on the commencement of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act and the petitioners were liable to be ejected from the land in dispute.

The subject matter in dispute is land measuring 19 kanals 14 marlas belonging to Shamlat Tarf Hinduan village Kuralian Hadbast No.283 Tehsil Ajnala Distt. Amritsar. According to the appellants, as per the entries in the revenue record, the said land cannot be a Shamlat belonging to Panchayat and its owners was Taraf Hinduan. Appellants had filed Civil Suit No.77 of 1967 for possession of the said land which was decreed holding that Gram Panchayat was not the owner of suit land. However, vide orders, impugned in Civil Writ Petition, the said Civil Court decree has been set at naught by the revenue Authorities illegally and the Civil Writ petition has also been dismissed ignoring the aforesaid facts and well settled principals of law in this regard.

Sd/-

Settlement Officer Consolidation of Holding 25/1/61 Amritsar-II"

As per the Consolidation Scheme, the area of Shamlat Tarafs Hinduan Shamlat Patti Uggarsain and Shamlat Patti Khan was reserved to be utilized for the common purposes and if some area of Taraf Hinduan remained unutilized, the same shall be the ownership of Panchayat Deh. The Consolidation Scheme came into existence on 25.1.1961 whereas the Civil Suit, the very basis of the claim of the appellants, was instituted on 3.4.1967 which culminated in the decree on 29.4.1968. Thus, it emanates that the Consolidation Scheme came into being about more than six years prior to the filing of this suit. It is appellants/petitioners' own case that the suit land was described as "Shamlat Taraf Hinduan Hasab Hissas Shirjran Nasab". If it was so, the land being Shamlat Taraf, in no manner could become the ownership of the appellant/petitioners, rather as per the entries in the said Jamabandi, 'Taraf Hinduan' was the owner of this land. There is not even a remote reference in Annexure P-1 that the appellant/petitioners had claimed themselves to be the share-holders in 'Taraf Hinduan'. It emanates from Annexure P-1 that the suit filed by the appellants was for possession of the land measuring 689 kanals 4 marlas which was decreed to the exclusion of land measuring 196 kanals 11 marlas. In fact vide Annexure P-1, the appellants had not sought declaration for their ownership qua the land in dispute.
It may also be relevant to mention at this stage that the jamabandies for the year 1961-62 and 1957-58 placed on record as Ex.P1 and P2 respectively in the Civil Court show that the property was in possession of the owners and was not being used for the common purposes of the village. But there is not an iota of evidence to connect the petitioners as owners of 'Shamlat Taraf Hinduan'. In fact, the petitioners have failed to connect themselves with the proprietors of the 'Shamlat Taraf Hinduan'. It is well settled principle of law that the case of plaintiff has to stand on his own legs. Simply because Gram Panchayat has failed to defend the suit, it does not mean that merely on the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the appellants were entitled to get possession of the land. The aforesaid evidence does not reveal the basis as to the right of the petitioners to have possession of the land.