Judgment

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Through the instant petition, the petitioners claim relief for quashing of the impugned orders dated 8.6.1984 (Annexure P-2), and, dated 29.3.1989 (Annexure P-3).

Factual background

2. The plaintiffs instituted case No. 1/Misc. of 11.5.1981, before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Dadri. In the said suit, they challenged the attestation of mutation No. 142, by the revenue officer concerned, whereby right, title and interest over the suit land, became conferred, upon the Gram Panchayat concerned. Moreover, they also claimed a declaratory relief, that they in terms, of the apposite savings clause, as occurs in Section 2 (g)(5) (viii) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act of 1961’), were thus through their predecessors-in-interest, hence holding independent cultivating possession of the suit land. Therefore, the suit land(s) was not amenable for being classified as shamilat deh land(s). Contrarily they pleaded that since in detraction from the applicability of the apposite savings clause to the suit land, the contested mutation No. 142, became attested in favour of the Gram Panchayat concerned, thereby the said contested mutation, is liable to be set aside.

“(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. Through a decision made on the lis (supra), on 9.2.1983 (Annexure P-1), the learned Assistant Collector concerned, on the hereinafter extracted issues, as became framed by him, thus made conclusions, that the declaratory relief, as espoused in the plaint (supra), is liable to be granted to the plaintiffs. Therefore, through the order dated 9.2.1983 (Annexure P-1), the plaintiffs’ suit became decreed.

(1) Whether the land in dispute is not ‘Shamlat Deh’ as defined in the Village Common Lands Act, if so to what effect ? OPP

(2) Whether the mutation No. 142 is void for the reasons given in para Nos. 3 and 4 of the plaint? OPP (Issue objected to)

(3) Whether the suit is within limitation ? OPP

(4) Whether the suit is not maintainable and the plaintiffs have no locus standi to suit ?OPD

(5) Whether the Nobat Ram has the authority to defend the suit ? If not to what effect ? OPD

(6) Relief.

4. The aggrieved therefrom i.e. the Gram Panchayat concerned, preferred an appeal thereagainst through its instituting Appeal No. 33-E, before the Collector concerned. The Appellate Authority concerned, through its making a decision thereons, on 8.6.1984 (Annexure P-2), allowed the said statutory appeal, and, thereby annulled the verdict, as carried in Anneuxre P-1.

5. The estate holders concerned, becoming aggrieved from the drawings of Annexure P-2, constituted thereagainst Revision No. 6 of 1983- 84, before the Revisional Authority concerned, who through a decision made thereons, on 29.3.1989 (Annexure P-3), after concurring with Annexure P-2, declined the declaratory relief to the estate holders concerned. The above concurrently made verdicts, as respectively carried in Annexure P-2, and, in Annexure P-3, bring grievance to the estate holders concerned-the petitioners hereins. Therefore they are led to constitute thereagainst the instant writ petition before this Court.

Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners, has made a vigorous submission before this Court, that the bar of limitation, as was erected against the estate holders concerned, both by the appellate authority concerned, and, thereafter by the revisional authority concerned, inasmuch as, the contentious mutation becoming drawn in the year 1964, whereas, the civil suit being instituted in the year 1981, thereby the same attracted thereagainst, thus the bar of limitation, rather is a fallaciously drawn inference. In making the above address, he submits, that though prima facie