R.S.A. No. 4187 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M. No. 12538-C of 2008 and R.S.A. No. 4187 of 2008 Date of decision: 14-5-2009 Gram Panchayat Sunari Kalan … Appellant versus Smt. Vedwanti & others … Respondents CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. S.P.Chahar, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: C.M. No. 12538-C of 2008: For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 194 in refiling the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. R.S.A. No. 4187 of 2008: This is defendant's second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction with consequential relief of mandatory injunction has been partly decreed. Plaintiff Umed Singh in his suit pleaded that he was in owner in possession of the suit land. Defendant-Gram Panchayat filed a petition against the plaintiff under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands(Regulation) Act,1961, for his ejectment from the suit land. On an objection taken by the plaintiff with regard to question of title, the same was converted into a suit under Section 13-A of the Act ibid for deciding the title of the suit land. The Assistant Collector I Grade and Collector, Rohtak, vide their orders dated 26.11.1985 and 4.8.1986 respectively held that the suit land was owned by the co-sharers of Pana Mehtan and possessed by the plaintiff being co-sharer and therefore,the said orders R.S.A. No. 4187 of 2008 2 attained finality. On the basis thereof, the plaintiff approached the Revenue Authorities many times for making entries regarding his ownership and possession but to no avail and the name of the Gram Panchayat continued to be mentioned in the column of ownership. Upon notice of the suit, defendant Gram Panchayat in its written statement pleaded that the suit was barred under Section 13 of the Act ibid. It further pleaded that on amendment of the provisions of the Act ibid vide Amending Act No. 9 of 1992, the suit land fell within the definition of “Shamlat Deh” under Section 2(g)(vi) of the Act and thus, the orders of the Assistant Collector and the Collector having become infructuous, the plaintiff was not entitled to get the entries changed. Trial Court upon appreciation of evidence adduced on record, vide judgment and decree dated 3.2.2006 partly decreed the suit to the extent of declaring the plaintiff as owner in possession of the suit land being share-holder of Shamlat Pana Mehtan and thus, directed the Revenue Authorities to enter the name of Shamlat Pana Mehtan in the column of ownership and to enter the mutation accordingly. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff Umed Singh and in his place, his legal representatives were brought on record as plaintiffs. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, defendant Gram Panchayat filed an appeal which was dismissed by the first appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 29.11.2007. Hence, the second appeal by the defendant. Both the Courts below upon appreciation of evidence adduced on record, have concurrently found that nothing has been brought on record to prove that the plaintiff is not the share-holder of Shamlat Pana Mehtan. DW-1 Dilbag Singh in his cross-examination admitted to be correct that till date, there was no possession of Gram Panchayat and that possession was with residents of Pana of the vilage and plaintiff had possession over 48 kanals of land. Further, as per documentary evidence produced on record in the shape of jamabandi and khasra girdawari, Exhibits D-3 and D-4 respectively, the plaintiff was the share-holder of Shamlat Pana Mehtan and has been shown to be in cultivating possession of the suit land. As regards the plea of the defendant that the suit land R.S.A. No. 4187 of 2008 3 could not be said to have fell within the definition of “Shamlat Deh” in view of the provisions of the Amending Act No. 9 of 1992, the same has been negatived by holding that such newly inserted provisions were challenged before the High Court as also before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was held that if the land was being used for any of the common purposes by the inhabitants of the said village, only then the same could be said to be vested in the Gram Panchayat where as in the present case, nothing has been brought on record to show that the suit land was being used for any common purpose by the villagers. Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact so recorded by the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, much less substantial, arises in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed in limine. ( ARVIND KUMAR ) May 14, 2009 JUDGE JS