LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 254 OF 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: Nov. 21st, , 2008. Parties Name Ram Kanwar ...APPELLANT. VERSUS Gram Panchayat Bidhal and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH PRESENT: Mr. R.S.Mittal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Atul Gaur, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? JASBIR SINGH, J. JUDGMENT This letters patent appeal has been filed by Ram Kanwar son of Giani Ram (for short the appellant ) against judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on February 8, 2008, dismissing civil writ petition No. 669 of 1985, filed by Giani Ram, father of the appellant. Record reveals that above said Giani Ram filed an application under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short the Act), as LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 254 OF 2008 -2- applicable to Haryana, for declaring him owner of the land measuring 46 Kanals 1 Marla, situated in the revenue estate of village Bidhal. It was his contention that the above said land was the ownership of 'Pana Dungran' of village Bidhal. He was in cultivating possession since the year 1952 and as such, being a co-sharer, he had become owner of the above said land. It was further averred by him that the land was not being used for any common purpose of the village. Mutation of the land, sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat in the year 1972 was also challenged by him having been incoprorated without any justification. In response to a notice issued by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Gohana, respondent No.1– the Gram Panchayat appeared and refuted all the averments made by the applicant Giani Ram. Both the parties led evidence to support their case. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, on perusal of evidence, on record came to the conclusion that the applicant had failed to prove his possession since the year 1954. It was further held that the land, in dispute, was being used for common purposes of the village, for which it was ear marked. To say so, reliance was placed upon 'Shart Wajib Ul Arz', incorporated in the year 1909-10, wherein it was provided that the land, in dispute, would be used for common purposes of the village. It was further noticed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade that the applicant had failed to implead the other co-sharers in the land in dispute and in their absence, no effective relief could have been granted in favour of the applicant. It was also found that requirements of Order 1 Rule 8 CPC had not been complied with by the applicant before filing the above said application. By noting above mentioned facts, application was dismissed vide order dated LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 254 OF 2008 -3- November 11, 1983 (P-5). Giani Ram, applicant, went in appeal, which was dismissed by the Collector by opining as under: “5. After hearing both the parties and perusing the evidence of the record, it is clear that the land in dispute has been shown as Pana land in the revenue record and in such a situation this case falls under Section 2(g)(3) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act and Section 2(g)(5) of the Act does not apply on the same. According to Section 2(g)(3) for inclusion of any land in the Shamlat Deh, the following is proved:- 1. The land in dispute according to the revenue record should be Shamlat, Taraf, Patti, Pana or Thola. 2. This land according to the revenue record should have been used for the common purposes of the village inhabitants or any class of the villagers. According to the case PLJ 1977 Page 444 (Sardar Singh and Sheoji Vs. Collector Sonepat) the position is to be seen as on 9.1.1954 and the position prior to and after this has no effect on this case. According to the Jamabandi for the year 1954-55 Exh. 14-F, some of the numbers of the land in dispute have been shown as Gair Mumkin Johar, some numbers as Banjar Qadim, some numbers are Gair Mumkin Dharamshala and some numbers as Gair Mumkin Chah. The same position has been shown in the Jamabandi for the year 1958-59 Exh. 14-E. In the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1967-68 Exh-11 this land has been LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 254 OF 2008 -4- shown as Barani and in the copies of the Jamabandi for the year 1972-73 Exh. 12 and Jamabandi 1977-78 Exh-13 this land has been shown as Nahri. In 1972-73, the land in dispute had been mutated in favour of the Panchayat and in this way the ownership of the land has been shown in the Jamabandis for the years 1972-73 and 1977-78 as Panchayat Deh. The appellant came in the possession for the first time in respect of only three numbers as shown in Jamabandi for the year 1972-73 Exh. 12, which is also shown in the year 1977-78. But neither the appellant has made efforts to clear as to how his possession came under the Panchayat nor the Panchayat has produced any proof which may show that the Panchayat has given the land in dispute to the appellants on lease, from which it is proved that the appellant illegally possessed the land in dispute in 1972-73. As submitted earlier it is necessary to see the position of this land as on 9.1.1954 and whether this land was used for the common purposes of the village or not, so the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1954-55 Exh. 14-F and copy of Jamabandi for 1958- 59 Exh. 14-D are to be made basis. In both these Jamabandis the land in dispute has been shown as Johar, Banjar Qadim, Dharamshala and Chah, from which it is proved that this land was being used for the common purposes of the villagers. I do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the land in dispute is to be seen as in 1961 and not on 9.1.1954. The contention of the Respondent that LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 254 OF 2008 -5- the other share-holder of the Pana have not been made parties by the appellant, has force and which is necessary. Therefore, on this basis, the suit of the appellant is liable to be dismissed.” Above said orders were challenged by filing civil writ petition No. 669 of 1985, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned order on February 8, 2008. Counsel for the appellant has failed to show us any legal infirmity in the orders under challenge. A categoric finding of fact has been given by the Collector while deciding appeal, filed by Giani Ram, that the land was being used for common purposes of the village. The appellant had failed to show, as to how he had entered in possession of the land in dispute. It was also noticed by the authorities below that as per Sharat Wazib Ul Arz for the year 1909-10, land in dispute was left for common purposes of the village. Perusal of Jamabandi for the year 1954-55 (P2) clearly indicates that most of the Khasra numbers were part of Johar (pond). In one Khasra number, Dharamshala was situated and Chah (well) was also dug in the above said property . Some portion of the land was shown as Banjar Kadim. It has come on record that the portion of the land was being used by the villagers as a common grazing ground for the animals. It has rightly been held by the authorities below that position of the land is to be seen as in the year 1954. As per Jamabandi, referred to above, applicant – appellant has not been shown in possession of any portion of the land in dispute in that year. Claim of the petitioner was also rejected on the ground that he has failed to implead the necessary parties. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 254 OF 2008 -6- The application for getting declaration was also not filed in a representative capacity. At the time of arguments before us, counsel for the appellant has failed to show, as to how much land is in personal ownership of the applicant – appellant, how much would be the share of the applicant – appellant in the disputed land and how many are the other co-sharers. Except one entry in Jamabandi for the year 1972-73, showing applicant Giani Ram as co-sharer, there is nothing on record to prove above said facts. Applicant – appellant cannot be declared owner of the land in dispute to the detriment of all the co-sharers, who were not before the authorities below. Judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is perfectly justified. Counsel for the appellant has failed to show us any error apparent on the record, on the basis of which any interference can be made by us in this appeal. Dismissed. (JASBIR SINGH) JUDGE ( T.S.THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE Nov. 21st , 2008 DKC