GRAM PANCHAYAT OF VILLAGE MUNDHAL KHURD Vs. AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reversed in second appeal the two decisions of the courts below on the strength of a Full Bench decision of that Court in Gram Panchayat, Sadhraur v. Baldev Singh to hold that the suit land being shown in revenue records to be owned by the shareholders of the three tholas belonged to those shareholders and not to the village community, or a part thereof, as the concept is known to the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). The instant appeal is to challenge that view.

(2.) The suit land is described in the revenue papers to be "in possession of the proprietors" of tholas. Three persons of those tholas joined together to institute a suit for declaration to the effect that the suit land was owned and possessed by the plaintiffs and other shareholders of the tholas which was being used in the interest of the tholas and not for the common purpose of the village community, and hence not "shamlat deh" in order to vest in the Gram panchayat. The suit ex facie was in a representative character and was instituted against the Gram Panchayat, asserting title to it challenging the purported vesting under the provisions of the Act. The trial court as well as the first appellate court relying on a Single Bench decision of that Court in coop. Society of Improvement of Shamilat Patti Harnam Singh Lambardar of Village Khanni v. Gram Panchayat of Village Khanni non-suited the plaintiffs on the ground that the joint possession of the proprietors of a patti, thola, panna or taraf, forming part of the village community, would all the same put such possessed lands within the ambit of "shamlat deh". Since this view was upset by the Full Bench of the High Court in the above mentioned case, the High Court in the instant matter reversed the decision of the two courts below primarily being cognizant of the views of the Full Bench extracted hereafter:

(3.) The learned Single Judge, bound as he was, had to follow the judgment of the Full Bench. Even otherwise, the definition of "shamilat deh" given in Section 2 (g) of the Act as extracted in the judgment under appeal, clearly reveals the legislative mandate that shamilat deh would not include lands which are described in the revenue records as shamilat, taraf, patti, panna and thola which are not used according to the revenue records, for the benefit of the village community, or a part thereof, for common purpose of the village. It has been noticed earlier that here the lands are described to be