PETITIONER:
SUKHDEV SINGH & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
GRAM SABHA BARI KHAD & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT28/01/1977
BENCH:
SHINGAL, P.N.
GOSWAMI, P.K.
CITATION:
1977 AIR 1003 1977 SCR (2) 862
1977 SCC (2) 518
ACT
Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act 1961, S.
2(g) proviso (iv), application to land under possession of
owners.
HEADNOTE
The appellants filed a suit for a declaration that the
suit land inherited by them was not "shamlat deh" within the
meaning of section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Land
(Regulation) Act, 1961, because it was excluded by virtue
of proviso (iv) to the clause. They contended that the
revenue records describing the land as "shamlat deh" also
stated it to be "in possession of the owners", showing that
it was not used as "shamlat deh", and furthermore, that it
had been partly purchased and partly received as gift by
their ancestor before 26th January, 1950, and thereby came
within the scope of s. 2(g) proviso (iv) of the Act. The
appellants failed before the Trial Court, Court of first
appeal, and the High Court in second appeal.
Dismissing the appeal by special leave, the Court,
HELD: (1) The fact that in 1914-15 it was recorded in
the ’jamabandi’ as "shamlat deh", shows that that particular
character of the land was recognised even so far back, and
it could not detract from that nature of the land merely
because it was further stated in the ’jamabandi’ that it was
in the possession of the owners "as per respective shares in
khewat". [863 F-G]
(2) Proviso (iv) requires that in order to be excluded
from the category of "shamlat deh", the land should have
been acquired by purchase or in exchange for proprietary
land from a co-sharer in the "shamlat deh", which is not so
in the case of the appellants. [863 G]
JUDGMENT
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 527 of 1975.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order
dated the 6-9-74 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in
R.S.A. No. 933 of 1970.
K.L. Gosain, N.N. Goswamy and Arvind Minocha for the
Appellant.
Gokal Chand Mittal, J.D. Jain, Arun Jain and (Miss) K.
Miglani for Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SHINGHAL, J.--The plaintiffs who have been unsuccessful
in the trial court, the court first appeal, and the High
Court in second appeal, have filed the-present appeal by
special leave. They raised their suit for a declaration
that the suit land continued to be in their ownership in
spite of the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands
(Regulation) Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the
Act. They pleaded that the land had been purchased by their
ancestor Udham Singh, who rounded the village, from Raja
Sansar Chand of Dholwaha, some time before 1884, and that
some other land was
863
gifted to him by one Smt. Dhani. They claimed that what
they had thus acquired was not "shamlat deh" within the
meaning of clause (g) of section 2 of the Act because it was
excluded by virtue of subclause (iv) of the proviso to
-the clause. That contention has been negatived all
through, and the short question for decision is whether any
interference is called for with that view.
It has not been disputed before us that the land in
question was described in the revenue records as "shamlat
deh", and -’ excluded "ahadi deh." That has in fact been
amply proved by the ’jamabandi’ of the year 1914-15 which
has been produced by the plaintiffs themselves and its
genuineness has not been controverted before us. As such,
by virtue of the definition of "shamlat deh" in Clause (g)
of section 2, the suit land fall within the definition of
"shamlat deh". The question remains whether it was excluded
from that definition by virtue of sub-clause (iv) of the
proviso to clause (g) which reads as follows .--
"(iv) having been acquired before the 26th
January, 1950, by a person by purchase or in
exchange for proprietary land from a co-sharer
in the shamilat deh is so recorded in the
jamabandi or is supported by a valid deed;"
It has been argued by counsel for the appellants that as
the suit land was recorded in the aforesaid Jamabandi as
"village shamilat", in possession of the owners, it should
be held that the land was not used as "shamlat deh."
Counsel has argued further that as the land was purchased
by the plaintiffs’ ancestor Udham Singh who, had founded the
village, from Raja Sansar Chand, and a part of it was
received by way of gift from Smt. Dhani, before January 26,
1950, and it was so recorded in the ’jamabandi’, the suit
land was excluded from the definition of "shamlat deh" by
virtue of the aforesaid subclause (iv’) of the proviso.
The argument is however untenable because of two reasons.
Firstly, the entry in the ’jamabandi’ of 1914-15 which
recorded that the land was in possession of the owners,
was quite innocuous, because it was made for the reason that
it was in nobody else’s possession. The fact that even
then it was recorded in the ’jamabandi’ as "shamlat deh"
shows that that particular character of the land was recog-
nised even as far back as 1914-15, and it could not detract
from that nature of the land merely because it was further
stated in the ’Jamabandi’ that it was in the possession of
the owners "as per respective shares in khewat". Secondly,
the aforesaid sub-clause (iv) requires that in order to be
excluded from the category of "shamlat deh", the land
should have been acquired by purchase or in exchange for
proprietary land from a co-sharer in the "shamlat deh." It
is not in controversy before us, and is not even the case of
the appellants, that the suit land was acquired by pur-
chase or in exchange for proprietary land from any co-
sharer in the "shamlat deh." Then there is the further
fact that the appellants have not been able to prove that
the suit land was recorded
864
in the ’Jamabandi’ as having been so acquired; and they have
not been able to produce any valid deed of purchase .or
exchange from any such co-sharer. We are therefore unable
to think that the view taken in the impugned Judgment of the
High Court requires reconsideration.
The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
M.R. Appeal dismissed.
865