JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral)

The present petitioner instituted a petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act of 1961), thus before the learned Collector concerned. Thereins, the present petitioner impleaded Gram Panchayat of village Dagam, Block and Tehsil Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur through its Sarpanch Smt. Surinder Kaur, thus as defendant/respondent. In the petition (supra), the petitioner herein claimed the relief of a declaratory decree being made in her favour, that she, as such be declared a valid owner in possession of the disputed land. The learned Collector concerned, through a decision made on the said petition, on 17.5.2017, and, to which Annexure P-5, is assigned, declined the espoused declaratory relief to the petitioner herein. The above declining order, as made on the petition (supra), led the petitioner to institute thereagainst a statutory appeal bearing No. 63 of 2017, before the competent appellate authority concerned. However, through a decision made thereons, on 14.10.2022, to which Annexure P-6 is assigned, the learned Appellate Authority concerned, after recording a verdict of dismissal on the said statutory appeal, thus proceeded to affirm the prior thereto decision (Annexure P-5), as became initially recorded by the Collector concerned. The above concurrently made verdicts of dismissal, on the plaintiff's suit, has led her, to access this Court through the filing of the instant writ petition.

2. A reading of the verdicts, as became drawn against the present petitioner, reveals that despite the petitioner averring in the plaint, that she had become a lawful owner in possession of the lands, occurring within the abadi deh, besides hers appending with the plaint a rough site plan, yet both the learned Courts below rather disbelieved the said averment. The non-assigning of credence to the above bald averment, became rested on the factum, that no documentary proof, thus comprised in the jamabandi(s) relating to the petition lands, became ever tendered into evidence, nor any valid exhibition mark became made thereons. Moreover, the rough site plan, as became appended with the plaint, also became not assigned any credence, as obviously it was not a substitute of a validly drawn tatima from the masawi concerned, but was drawn by a person, other than the Patwari of the halqa concerned, who otherwise, is vested with a lawful authority to, from the masawi concerned, prepare a tatima, and, supply to the petitioner, so that thereafter it becomes tendered into evidence, and, obviously thereafter its becoming lawfully exhibited.

3. Therefore, though obviously the above made concurrent verdicts against the petitioner, on the petition (supra), do not warrant this Court, to make any interference with either Annexure P-5 or with Annexure P-6, yet the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vigorously argued before this Court, that yet the verdict of the learned Civil Court concerned, which became rendered, on 24.12.2013, upon Civil Suit No. 15 of 2011, and, to which Annexure P-7 is assigned, whereby the learned Civil Court concerned, granted the espoused decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, was thus required to be assigned value by the authorities below, whereas, with no value becoming assigned to Annexure P-7 by both the competent authorities below, rather results in the said verdicts being flawed.

4. The above argument, as addressed before this Court, is meritless, and, obviously is required to be rejected. The reason for rejecting the above argument, is based on the premise, that in the array of defendants, in the civil suit (supra), the Gram Panchayat concerned, never became impleaded as a defendant, thereby it became preclu