IMPORTANT POINT
Where disputed land was "Shamlat deh" and hand formed a part of gram sabha to a part of which municipal limits were extended then the said land vested with the Municipality by virtue of the provisions of Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 and the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 and it did not revest with the Khewatdars under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.

Headnote:(i) The Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952-Section 4(3)-Punjab Gram Panchayat Rules, 1965-Rule 3-Punjab Municipal Act, 1911-Section 56-Disputed land was "Shamlat Deh"forming part of Gram Sabha-Part of it included in urban estate under Punjab Municipal Act-Whether the said land vested with the Municipality or revested with Khewatdars under Section 3 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 ? (With Municipality).
       Held : A combined reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Gram Panchayat Act, the Rules made thereunder and the Punjab Municipal Act unequivocally indicate that on and from the date of issuance of a notification extending the municipal limits over a part of the sabha area that part of the sabha area forms a part of the municipality and it is the municipality on whom right, title and interest over the area vests. It is difficult to accept the reasoning advanced by the courts below that only when the entire sabha area comes within the municipal limits then the property vests and not otherwise. In our considered opinion the expression whole in Section 4(3) of the Gram Panchayat Act brings within its sweep also a part of the sabha area and therefore the disputed properties in the case in hand which originally formed a part of sabha area of village Brahman Majra having been included in municipal limits of Sirhind Municipality by notification dated 18.9.1968, it is the municipality on whom the right, and interest of the property vested and it never revested at the khewatdars as found by the courts below. The courts below including the High Court not only committed error in interpreting Section 4(3) of the Gram Panchayat Act but also committed error in relying upon proviso to Rule 3 of the Gram Panchayat Rules since on the date when the notification was issued extending the municipal limits of Sirhind Municipality on 18.9.1968 Secion 4(3) of the Gram Panchayat Act was not in force and therefore the Rule 3 could not have operated upon. As has been stated earlier Section 56 of the Municipal Act and Section 4 of the Gram Panchayat Act make the legislative intention clear that when a part of the sabha area gets included within the municipal limits of any municipality the property comprised therein vests with the Municipal Committee. In this view of the matter the plaintiffs who were the original khewatdars cannot claim the property in question and it is the municipality which continues to be the owner of the disputed property. (Para 10)
       (ii) Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961-Sections 2(g) amd 3(2)-Revesting of "Shamlat deh"property in favour of Khewatdars -Not attracted as it is not established that disputed property stood excluded from "Shamlat deh". (Para 12)
       (iii) Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Section 11-Res judicata-Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Section 30-Proceedings under Section 30-Question of title not in issue-Finding on it-Is without jurisdiction and as such it cannot operate as res-judicata in present proceedings (Para 13)

JUDGMENT

G.B. Pattanaik, J.-Leave granted.

2. This appeal by way of special leave is directed against the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 1187 of 1989 arising out of a suit against the defandant- Municipal Committee for a declaration that the land entered is Khewat No. 391 measuring 321 Kanals 14 Marlas and in Khewat No. 392 measuring 1197 Kanals 5 Marlas in village Brahman Majra, Tehsil Sirhind as fully described in para A and B of the plaint are the properties of the plaintiffs and they are khewatdars and defendant should be permanently injuncted from dispossessing the plaintiffs.

3. The plaintiffs case in nutshell is that they are khewatdars of village Brahman Majra and they filed the suit in representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. It was alleged that Khasra No. 391 and 392 measuring 321 Kanals 14 Marlas in Khewat No. 392 measuring 1197 Kanals 5 Marlas respectively are Shamlat deh and it was under Nagar Panchayat. By a Notification dated 18.9.1968 the Municipal Limits of Sirhind Municipality was extended covering a part of Gram Sabha area of Nagar Panchayat and the disputed area came under the Municipal Limits. It is further averred that Gram Sabha of the village having been abolished, the lands in question reverted to the original khewatdars under the proviso to Rule 3 of the Gram Panchayat Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). When Punjab Government acquired a portion of the said land for construction of godown for storing foodgrains, an award was passed on 19.3.1977 by Collector, Patiala and thereafter the reference having been made to the District Judge under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, the said District Judge determined the compensation to be payable to the plaintiffs even though the defendant- Municipal Committee also claimed compensation. The said decision therefore operates as res judicata against the defendant in the present proceeding. It was also further averred that mutation was ordered in favour of the plaintiffs by the Collector by Order dated 8.8.1975. A revision being carried out by the Municipal Committee, the Financial Commissioner set aside the said order by his order dated 13.5.1982 and directed mutation in favour of Municipal Committee and therefore the plaintiffs filed the suit for the relief as already stated. The defendant- Municipal Committee in the written statement took the stand that the disputed property though Shamlat deh was a part of Gram Sabha. But on and from the date of issuance of notification extending the Municipal limits of Sirhind over the area, it formed a part of the Municipality and therefore the Municipal Committee has right, title and interest to the land. It was also further averred that the compensation amount having been awarded in favour of the plaintiffs on a finding that the acquired land forms a part of plaintiffs proprietory interest, the principle of res judicata will not apply. On these pleadings the learned Trial Judge framed as many as 7 issues and on issues 1 to 3 came to conclusion that the plaintiffs are the khewatdars of village Bhrahman Majra, and are owners of the suit land and the ownership of the land vests with the proprietor of the village and not in the Municipal Committee. On issue No. 4 the Trial Judge found that the question of title to the suit land has finally and conclusively been decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala in reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and the said decision operates as res judicata in the present proceedings. On issue No. 6 the learned Trial Judge came to hold that valid notice under Section 49 of the Punjab Municipal Act had been duly served upon the defendant before filing of the present suit. With these findings the suit having been decreed. The defendant carried the matter in appeal. The learned Additional District Judge, Patiala confirmed the findings of Trial Judge and dismissed the appeal. The defen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document