Shish Pal Singh vs Rafiq Ahmad

V.K. Jhanji, J.

Plaintiffs (petitioners herein) filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs forcibly, and from changing the nature of the suit land. As per admitted case of the parties, the suit land is being used as Gair Mumkin Charand i.e. for the purpose of grazing the cattles.

Along with the aforesaid suit, the plaintiffs filed an application for the grant of adinterim injunction which was allowed by the trial Court. On an appeal filed by the defendants, the first appellate Court set aside the order of the trial court granting adinterim injunction to the plaintiffs. The first appellate Court after taking into consideration the revenue record, was prima facie of the view that the land in dispute is Shamlatdeh, and was being used by the inhabitants'' of the village for the purpose of grazing the cattles; therefore, under Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 for short, the Act)'' the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. This order is being challenged by the plaintiffs by way of present revision petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the suit land is in possession of Maqbuja Malkan as per entries in the respective columns of Jamabandi for the year 198384, and therefore, it does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kala Singh v. Commissioner, Hissar Division, and others, 1994 PLJ 169 and a judgment of this Court in Chajju Ram v. The Joint Director, Panchayats, 1986 PLJ 293 : 1986 R.R.R. 105.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per the Jamabandi for the year 198384, and as per the case of the plaintiffs, the suit land being Shamlat Deh, is being used for the purpose of grazing cattles, by the inhabitants of the village. He, therefore, submits that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, so the plaintiff are not entitled to the grant of adinterim injunction.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that no interference is called for in the revision petition.

As per the revenue record, the land has been described as Banjar Qadim Charand and Gair Mumkin Darkhatan. The trial court has also observed in para 4 of the judgment that the suit property is in the nature of Shamlat Deh and is used for grazing animals, is not disputed by either of the parties. In view of the admitted case of the parties that the land has been described as Gair Mumkin Charand; therefore, falls within the definition contained in Section 2(g)(1) of the Act which reads as under :

"g(1) Shamlat deh or Charand " includes;

(1) Land described in the revenue records as Shamlat deh or Charand excluding abadi deb."

Therefore, the first appellate Court was right in observing that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit; that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the grant of adinterim injunction. The judgments in Kala Singh''s case (supra) and Chajju Ram''s case, (supra), cited by learned counsel for the petitioners are clearly distinguishable because in those cases, during consolidation by imposing a cut, some land was carved out, and in the revenue records, it was who in the ownership of Mustarka Malkan and other right holders in proportion to land owned by them and in individual cultivation of landowners. Therefore, it was held that the land kept apart as Mustarka Malkan vests in proprietary body. However, this is not the position in the present case.

Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Any observation made in this order shall not affect the merits of the suit.