Mr. M. Jeyapaul, J.: - CM No. 11515-C of 2011:

1. The sole appellant-plaintiff has died. The application is filed under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure to implead his legal representatives.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The application is allowed. Registry is directed to carry out necessary amendment in the memorandum of parties.

RSA No. 3999 of 2011:

4. The appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased Hoshiar Singh. Plaintiff Hoshiar Singh (since deceased) filed a suit for declaration that the order of the Assistant Collector I Grade dated 31.8.2001, order dated 31.3.2003 of the Collector, Sonepat, and order dated 24.11.2004 of the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, are illegal, null and void and without jurisdiction, and for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff from the plot in dispute.

5. The case of the plaintiff is that he has been in possession of plot No. 247 measuring 217 sq. yards, marked in red colour in the site plan attached with the plaint. The suit property is situate in the abadi Deh of village Sitawali. Plaintiff also has been in possession of the plot in dispute for the last 50-60 years, having included it in his own plot situated in the western and southern plot in dispute. Ist defendant filed an application before the Assistant Collector I Grade, Ganaur, invoking the provisions under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking ejectment of the plaintiff from the plot in dispute, alleging that the said plot in dispute is owned by the Gram Panchayat. Plaintiff contested the above proceedings before the Assistant Collector denying the title of the Gram Panchayat with respect to the plot in dispute but the Assistant Collector having heard the matter, ordered ejectment of the plaintiff from the plot in dispute. Plaintiff took up the matter in an appeal before the Collector, Sonepat, who chose to dismiss the appeal. Plaintiff also availed the remedy of filing a petition before the Revisional Authority, namely, the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, who also dismissed the revision petition vide his order dated 24.11.2004.

6. Plaintiff has contended in the plaint that the order passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, is illegal, null and void and without jurisdiction as the asbadi Deh land has been specifically and explicitly excluded from the definition of “Shamlat Deh” as defined in Section 2(g)(iv) of the Act. It was not pleaded by the defendant that the well which was the subject matter of dispute was a drinking well which falls under the definition of “Shamlat Deh”. The well was never used for drawing water for drinking purposes. Therefore, it was contended by the plaintiff that he is entitled to the relief of declaration and permanent injunction as sought for.

7. Ist defendant remained ex-parte. 2nd defendant contended in his written statement that the plaintiff was not the owner in possession of the plot in dispute. It was only the Gram Panchayat, (2nd defendant herein) which was the owner of the plot in dispute. It was allotted to it in the partition proceedings in the village. The possession of the plaintiff over the plot in dispute is illegal as he has no right to continue in its possession. Plaintiff has not got the plot in dispute from the Gram Panchayat under lease or under any other arrangement. He was simply an encroacher of the plot in dispute.

8. Both the Courts below chose to dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff. Hence, this appeal.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the well which is admittedly situated in the disputed plot was never used for drawing water by the villagers. In other words, it was never used for common purpose inasmuch as the defendants have not established that the plot in dispute was Shamlat deh. The Revenue Authorities did not have any jurisdiction to entertain the proceed