The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961, particularly Section 4(1) and Section 13, which determined the vesting of rights in the Gram Panchayat and the bar on the jurisdiction of civil courts.

AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J.

1. This is the plaintiffs' second appeal after their suit seeking a declaration with a consequential relief of permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Sonepat and the first appeal filed by them was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat.

2. The plaintiffs had contended in their suit that they are in physical cultivating possession of agricultural land measuring 18 kanals and 17 marlas, fully described in the plaint, situated in the revenue estate of Village Joshi Chauhan, Tehsil and District, Sonipat, since the time of their forefathers, without paying any rent, lagan etc., since before 1943-44, i.e. much before the enactment of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961. The ten plaintiffs contended that they were co-owners of the suit land and had a share in the shamlat land of the village prior to enforcement of the aforesaid Act of 1961 and also 12 years prior to the enactment of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Property Rights) Act, 1953.

They thus contended to be in continued peaceful possession of the suit land without interruption for more than 70 years and claimed to have become owners in possession thereof by acquiring occupancy right under Section 5 of the Punjab Tenanancy Act, 1887, read with Section 3 of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Property Rights )Act, 1953.

3. It was further stated in the plaint that the defendant Gram Panchayat had got entered a mutation in its favour after colluding with the revenue authorities, without giving any opportunity or notice to the plaintiffs and as such, they sought the setting aside of the said mutation on the ground that it was illegal, null and void, with subsequent entries thereafter also to be illegal and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs.

It was still further contended that the land had not been leased out by the Gram Panchayat and was not being used for any common purpose of the village and simply on the basis of a wrong mutation and revenue records, the defendants were threatening to interfere in the peaceful possession of the suit property, forcibly and illegally.

It was therefore pleaded in the suit that the plaintiffs be declared to be the owners in possession of the suit land, being occupancy tenants, after declaring mutation No.886 to be illegal, null and void and further, a decree restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs, be also issued.

4. It may be noticed here that the defendants impleaded in the suit were Gram Panchayat and its Sarpanch, the Lambadar of the village (by name), the residents of the village and all the proprietors of the village, in a representative capacity, through defendant No.4, Hari Singh, as one of the proprietors.

5. The first 2 defendants, i.e. the Gram Panchayat and its Sarpanch, were ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte by the learned Civil Judge, vide order dated 12.10.2006 (the suit having been instituted on 07.09.2006) and the proprietors in a representative capacity, i.e. defendant No.6, were also subsequently proceeded against ex-parte.

Defendants No.3, 4 and 5, i.e. the Lambardar and two proprietors, Hari Singh and Ram Kumar, appeared and admitted the contents of the plaint and consequently also did not lead any evidence.

The suit not having been contested, no issues were framed by the learned Civil Judge.

6. The first plaintiff, (presently the first appellant), Dharam Singh, testified as PW-1, in terms of the plaint with his testimony corroborated by PW-2 Anup, PW-3 Bhim and PW-Partap Singh.

7. The learned Civil Judge, upon appraisal of the plaint and the evidence led by the plaintiffs, found that as per the revenue record, i.e. jamabandi (records of rights) since the year 1931-32, the suit land was shown as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasab Raqba Khewat. One Budh Singh was shown to be in possession of 2 marlas of the land, which was gair mumkin in nature. To similar effect was the jamabandi f