Harbhajan Singh vs Avtar Singh

Surinder Gupta, J

Heard.

The plaintiff filed suit for possession of the property marked as ABCD as shown red in the site plan attached with the plaint, on the basis of ownership and previous possession being proprietors and khewatdars of the village. The plaintiff has alleged that his forefathers were holding the property shown as Abadi Deh or Shamlat Deh in their capacity being proprietors. The defendant is neither proprietor nor Khewatdar of village or had contributed any land at the time of consolidation of holdings. His possession over the suit property is as trespassers.

Both the Courts rejected the plea raised by the plaintiff seeking relief of possession. The Ist Appellate Court in its observations in para 14, 15 and 16 (wrongly mentioned as 51) has observed as follows:

14.There is no denying the fact that plaintiff is Proprietor in the Village. It is also an admitted fact that defendant is not the proprietor of the Village but has migrated from Pakistan. However, it is the specific case of defendant that his forefathers had settled in the Village more than 50 years back and that defendant is in possession of the suit land from the life time of his forefathers. Plaintiff himself has, in his cross examination, admitted that the forefathers of Avtar Singh were allotted land in the Village of plaintiff about more than 50 years back and that whereas some houses had been raised in the allotted land, a few houses have been constructed in the suit property by the defendant/forefathers of defendant.

It is, thus apparent that after the defendant/his forefathers migrated to India from Pakistan, they were allotted land in Village Mutton, in which plaintiff is one of the proprietors. However, apart from the allotted land, defendant/his forefathers also came into possession of the suit property which falls within abadi of the Village but was not allotted to defendant/his forefathers. The Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 came into force in the year 1961. Section 4 (1) (b) of the Act provides that all the rights, title or interest whatever in the land, which is situated within or outside the abadi deh of a village and which is under the house owned by a non-proprietor, shall, on the commencement of shamlat law, be deemed to have been vested in such non-proprietor. Thus, even if defendant/his forefathers were not proprietors of the Village, by virtue of Section 4 of the Act, the suit land, on which they claim to be in possession prior to the commencement of Shamlat Law, shall be deemed to have been vested in defendant/his forefathers, more particularly, when it is the case of plaintiff himself that defendant/forefathers had constructed house in some part of the suit property.

In such a situation, when there is no denial to the settled possession of defendant/his forefathers over the suit property much prior to the commencement of Shamlat Law, the suit property can well be said to have come to be vested in the defendant/his forefathers even if they were non-proprietors.

Both the Courts below on the basis of admitted facts have concluded that by virtue of Section 4 (1) (b) of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation Act), 1961, the suit property vests in defendant/respondent, as such, the plaintiff has no locus standi to seek the possession of the same.

No law to the contrary has been cited during the course of arguments to set aside the observations made by the Courts below. Even the observations on fact have not been challenged. I find no merits in this appeal.

Dismissed.