JUDGMENT

Mr. Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral)

The present petitioner, on becoming aggrieved from the drawing of Annexure P-17, by the competent appellate authority concerned, whereby his statutory appeal became dismissed, thus has raised his grievance there against through his instituting the instant writ petition before this Court.

2. Initially, the learned Collector concerned, through the drawing of Annexure P-5, had declined to the petitioner herein, (the plaintiff in the apposite civil suit), the claimed there ins relief for his being declared, as owner in possession of the suit land.

3. Therefore, the petitioner received concurrent verdicts of dismissal, upon his civil suit, respectively by the learned Collector concerned, and, thereafter also from the learned competent appellate authority concerned. The said decisions are respectively enclosed in Annexure P-5 and in Annexure P-17.

4. The basis of the petitioner's claim for a declaratory decree becoming pronounced in his favour, became hinged, upon the fact um, that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, was the recipient of a decree of possession, as, made by the Judicial Committee of Patiala and East Punjab States Union at Patiala, and, to which Annexure P-1, is assigned. The petitioner had claimed that since the said decree was drawn prior to 26.1.1950, thus when in pursuance to the said decree, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner also entered, upon the possession over the suit land, resultant, he claimed, that such assumption, by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, over the petition land, thus saved the petition land from becoming vested in the shamlat deh.

5. A perusal of Annexure P-1, does prim face reveals, that it was a conditional decree. Therefore, only, upon the condition precedent for the said decree becoming completely enforced or becoming fully executed, thus the said decree would acquire legal force. The said condition became comprised in the plaintiff there ins, who is the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner, depositing a sum of Rs. 3,000/-, if not already deposited, before the authority concerned, whereby the said decree of possession (Annexure P-1), as stated above, thus would become fully enforceable, and, executable.

6. In the above regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards the revelations occurring in Annexure P-2(T), which but manifestly state, that in pursuance to execution of warrants of possession, the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner, one Jamait Singh (plaintiff in the civil suit concerned), thus assuming valid possession over the petition land. Therefore, prim face the said assumption of possession, by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, over the petition land, thus would occur only when obviously the above condition precedent, became complied with by him. Resultant, prim face the said decree does have an apt force.

7. Be that as it may, both the authorities below made concurrent verdicts of dismissal, upon the plaintiff's suit. The declining reason(s) which became assigned in the said decisions, hence are comprised in the fact um, that since Annexure P-1, does not mention the apposite khasra numbers, thus the plaintiff becoming disabled to cogently establish, that the apposite saving clause, as, carried in Section 2 (g)(5) (viii) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, thus saving the petition lands from their becoming vested in shamlat deh.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues, that since the said annexure became tendered into evidenc