Shamlet Deh--Under the provisions of the 1954 Act there is no definition of Shamlet Deh--Accordingly, under the provisions of the 1954 Act only such land which was described as Shamlat Deh in the revenue record would be taken as Shamlat Deh

Mr. Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.: - Plaintiffs Risala and others instituted a suit for possession in a representative capacity against Municipal Committee, Narwana by pleading that 4/5th share of the suit land measuring 60 kanals 9 marlas situated at Narwana was titled, owned and possessed by the proprietors of Thola Panchayam consisting of one share each of Patti Ramu, Khandu, Miru, Radar and Dass. It was pleaded that the defendants had no right or interest in the suit land but in pursuance to the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Common Lands Act, 1974 (herein after referred to as the 1974 Act), mutation no.6097 had been sanctioned on 15.7.1976 in favour of the defendants without notice to the plaintiffs. It was further pleaded that the aforementioned 1974 Act had been declared ultra vires and had been struck down by the High Court and consequently the plaintiffs’ status as owners in possession in suit was restored. It was pleaded that the defendant had been called upon to get the mutation cancelled but on their refusal and upon the defendant-Committee taking forcible possession of the suit land, the suit had been filed.

2. The defendant contested the suit in terms of stating that Municipal Committee, Narwana was continuing as owner in possession of the suit land even prior to the enactment of the 1974 Act by virtue of the provisions of the PEPSU Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1954 (herein after referred to as the 1954 Act). It was further stated that the mutation regarding the suit land had been sanctioned on 11.5.1977 in favour of Municipal Committee, Narwana in pursuance to the provisions of the 1974 Act.

3. Upon the pleadings of the parties, following issues were struck by the Trial Court:-

“1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners of the suit property as alleged? OPP.

2. Whether the mutation No.6097 sanctioned on 15.7.76 in favour of the defendant is illegal, void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs? OPP.

3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPP.

4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD.

5. Whether the suit is barred by principle of res judicata? OPD.

6. Relief.”

4. The Trial Court vide judgement dated 4.5.1982 returned findings under Issue no.1 holding the defendant to be having title of the suit land under the provisions of the 1954 Act as also under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 holding the suit land to be Shamlat Deh. Issue no.2 was decided in favour of the plaintiffs thereby returning finding that the mutation no.6097 sanctioned on 15.7.1976 was illegal and void and ultimately the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed. Aggrieved of the same, the plaintiffs preferred a civil appeal and vide impugned judgement dated 1.10.1984 the Additional District Judge, Jind has accepted the appeal and thereby the suit of the plaintiffs for possession of the land measuring 60 kanals 9 marlas has been decreed against the Municipal Committee, Narwana. Resultantly, defendant- Municipal Committee, Narwana is in second appeal before this Court.

5. I have heard Mr. Akshay Bhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents at length.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the suit land was Shamlat Deh and accordingly, it had vested in the Municipal Committee by virtue of Section 3 sub clause (A) of the 1954 Act and as such the Lower Appellate Court had grossly erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs as the Municipal Committee had become owner of the land in dispute even prior to the coming into force of the Haryana Municipal Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1974. Learned counsel for the appellant would further vehemently contend that under Section 2 sub clause (G) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 the land belonging to Tholas etc. would also fall within the definition of Shamlat Deh and accordi