The importance of providing sufficient evidence to support a claim based on a savings clause, and the requirement for courts to make a proper appreciation and appraisal of relevant evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

1. The instant petition is directed against the order dated 30.9.2015 (Annexure P-4), whereby the Appellate Court concerned, after allowing the appeal bearing No. 110 of 2015, as became preferred by one Baldev Singh, against the denial to him of the espoused declaratory decree, through the order dated 21.2.2005 (Annexure P-2), by the learned Collector concerned, thus reversed Annexure P-2, and, also thereby assigned the declaratory relief to the plaintiff one Baldev Singh.

2. The suit claim reared before the learned Collector concerned, by one Baldev Singh, became rested on the premise, that he had acquired valid right, title, and, interest to the suit land, on the basis of applicability to him, of the relevant savings clause, to the definition of shamlat deh, as occurs in Section 2(g)(viii) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act of 1961’). The relevant savings clause, which became relied upon by the plaintiff (supra), in his declaratory suit, becomes extracted hereinafter.

“(viii) was shamilat deh, was assessed to land revenue and has been in the individual cultivating possession of co-sharers not being in excess of their respective shares in such shamilat deh on or before the 26th January, 1950.”

3. Though in terms of the said savings clause, it was imperative for the plaintiff in the suit (supra) to adduce sufficient cogent evidence, thus personificatory, that in respect of the land, as described in the column of cultivation in the jamabandi, as hasab rasad jar khewat, rather he was in independent cultivation of the disputed land(s) but prior to the year 1950.

4. The learned Collector concerned, after making a keen appreciation of the evidence, which became adduced before him, concluded, that the plaintiff (supra), failed to adduce sufficient, and, clinching evidence to succor his suit claim, qua his in terms of the savings clause (supra),thus holding independent cultivating possession of the suit land, hence prior to 1950.

5. Therefore, the Collector concerned, through Annexure P-2, declined the espoused declaratory decree vis-a-vis the suit land, to one Baldev Singh. The operative part of the verdict, which became recorded by the Collector concerned, in Annexure P-2, becomes ad verbatim extracted hereinafter.

“After perusal of above claim, statements proofs and written arguments the Court has reached the conclusion that the jamabandis submitted by the petitioner Ex. P-7 to Ex. P-10, in column No. 4 it is entered as Nagar Panchayat Deh, in Ex. P-11, jamabandi for the year 1984-85 in column No. 4 it is entered as Gram Panchayat Deh and in cultivator it is entered Satnam Singh son of Sant Ram ‘Gair Mumkin’. In the same manner in jamabandi year 1989-90 in khewat No. 45 and khatauni No. 76 possession has been shown of Satnam Singh son of Sant Ram as cultivator and in khatauni No. 86, Baldev Singh son of Ajit Singh in column No. 9 has been shown as lease holder cultivator. The same is entered in Ex. P-14. From this it appears that the petitioner as per jamabandi 1984-85 came in possession on some numbers and in Ex. P-14, jamabandi year 1999-2000 came in possession as lease holder (chakodedar). The petitioner could not prove the possession from 26.1.1950 continuously, as per above record the petitioner came in possession in 1999-2000 as lease holder, therefore, as per decision of the higher courts, after the stipulated tenure, the lease holder is considered as in illegal possession and the lease holder cannot challenge the title. Therefore, the petition of the petitioner is dismissed.”

6. A reading of the above extracted conclusion, which became formed by the Collector concerned, does ipso facto candidly reveals, that a keenest application of mind was made by him, to the revenue entries, as were occurring in the relevant revenue records. The said revenue entries have been unfolded in the above extracted operative part of the verdict (supra), to reveal, that the plaint