Co-operative Society of Improvement of Shamilat Patti Harnam Singh Lambardar of Village Khanni and another vs Gram Panchayat of Village Khanni

D.K. Mahajan, J.—This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by two co-operative Societies of village Khanni. These societies were formed for the management of the two Pattis in the village, namely, Patti Harnam Singh and Patti Sarwan Singh. On the coming into force of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act (1 of 1954) the Shamilat belonging to these pattis was mutated in the name of the village Panchayat. It is against this order that the present suit was filed by the Co-operative Societies.

The short question that arose for determination in the Courts below was whether the Shamilat belonging to the Pattis was such a Shamilat as would vest in the Gram Panchayat. Both the Courts below have come to a concurrent decision that the Shamilat of these Pattis vest in the Gram Panchayat. The plaintiffs, who are dissatisfied with this decision have come up in second appeal to this Court.

During the pendency of this appeal, the old Act, namely, The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act (1 of 1954) has been replaced by the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act (18 of 1961). In the earlier Act all that was stated was that Shamilat deh was to vest in the Panchayat having jurisdiction in the village. However, Shamilat Deh was not defined in that Act. In the 1961 Act, Shamilat Deh has been defined in section 2 and is in these terms:-

Shamilat Deh includes-

(1) * * * *

(2) * * * *

(3) Lands described in the revenue records as Shamilat, Tarafs, Pattis, Pannas and Tholas and used according to revenue records for the benefit of the village community or a part thereof or for common purposes of the village;

(4) * * * *

(5) * * * *

but does not include land which-

* * * *

(v) is described in the revenue records as Shamilat, Taraf, Pattis, Pannas and Thola and not used according to revenue records for the benefit of the village community or a part thereof or for common purposes of the village;

It is apparent from the reading of the above clauses of the definition that Shamilat Patti is Shamilat provided it is used according to the revenue record for the benefit of the village community or part thereof or for common purposes of the village, but it will not include Shamilat of a Patti which is not used according to the revenue records for the benefit of the village community or a part thereof or for common purposes of the village. Therefore, the short question that requires determination is whether the Shamilat of these Pattis is used for the benefit of a part of the village only or for the common purposes of the village. The contention of Mr. Hoshiarpuri, learned counsel for the respondent, is that it is used for the benefit of the part of the village only whereas the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that it is not so used. In the revenue records it is entered as Shamilat Patti and in possession of the owners thereof. There is nothing in the revenue record to show that the benefit is confined to any one of the owners of the Shamilat individually. The benefit goes jointly to all the owners of the Pattis. In my view this entry clearly shows that the Shamilat in question is being used for the benefit of the part of the village community and, therefore, falls within the definition of the word ''Shamilat'', in the Act and hence rightly vests in the Panchayat. In this view of the matter, the decision of the Courts below is correct and must be upheld.

For the reasons given above, this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.