JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

Factual Background.

Puran Singh and others instituted case No. 19 of 2000 before the Collector concerned. In the said case, became impleaded two respondents, inasmuch as, one Lakshman Dass and Gram Panchayat Sisana. In the said suit, a declaratory relief, is claimed by the plaintiffs, that they are biswedarans (shareholders of land in village) of Pana Hansan and Meharban of Village Sisana. Thus, the disputed land measuring 206 kanals 15 marlas, as comprised in Khewat No. 895/876, Khata No. 1363 and 1364, Killa Nos. 227/16/8-0, 17/8-19, 18/8-16, 19/5-0, 21/6-7, 22/8-0, 24/8-0, 25/8-0, 228/1/8-0, 2/8-0, 229/9/8-0, 11/7-4, 12/8-0, 19/8-0, 20/7-4, 228/11/2/2-9, 20/8-0, 21/4-0, 227/15/5-11, 229/21/7-4, 2/8-0, 230/1/6-16, 2/1/5-13, 238/5/7-4, 6/1/6-0, 229/1/7-4, 2/8-0, 3/8-0, 10/7-4, be declared to fall to their ownership and possession.

Facts relevant for the decision of the instant writ petition.

2. The said declaratory suit was filed in a representative capacity, and, the proprietors/biswedarans of the panna, claimed that one Lakshman Dass, arrayed as a respondent therein, had no valid right title and interest over the suit land, as he did not succeed, as a Dholidar/beneficiary to the disputed lands.

3. The suit lands became assigned as a Dholidar, to one Jiwan Dass, but the initial assignees (supra), had a limited beneficial interest in the suit lands, and, had no right, title or interest to misappropriate or unsurp the lands, as became assigned to him only as a Dholidar, and, rather not as owner thereof. Though, the said averment was made on the premise, that the assignment of the disputed lands, to one Jiwan Dass, as a dholidar, was but a limited assignment, but holding longevity only till the lands became used for charitable purposes. However, it was contended that though, the assignment of the disputed lands to one Jiwan Dass, as a Dholidar though could enure, and did enure to the benefit of his validly appointed chela one Ganeshi Dass, and, thereafter to one Kanhiya Dass. Nonetheless, it was contented, that Lakshman Dass could not on demise of one Kanhiya Dass, hence be construed, to be succeeding as a dholidar of the disputed lands, as Kanhiya Dass, did not nominate or appoint Lakshman Dass as his disciple. Thus, it was averred that the land was free from the encumbrance of Dholidarship or from encumbrance of the relevant charitable purpose, for which it was assigned to the purported predecessor in interest, of one Lakshman Dass, rather the limited grant, ceased to exist but necessarily on the premise, that the last holder of the office of the dholidar one Kanhiya Das, did not appoint Lakshman Dass, as his chela.

4. The learned Collector concerned, after striking issues, on the said pleadings and after receiving evidence thereons, made a conclusion, that Lakshman Dass, respondent No. 1 therein, was unable to produce any documentary evidence, potraying that he had been appointed as a valid successor, by one Kanhiya Dass, the last holder of the office of Dholidar, and, to whom the assignment of the disputed lands was made, but for charitable purposes. Moreover, it was also concluded, that on the basis of decree of the Civil Court passed, on 24.05.1982, in pursuance whereof, one Lakshman Dass, had leased on 14.07.1992, 91 kanals 5 marlas of the disputed land, to one Mehar Dass Sher Singh, rather is inconsequential, so as to erode the rights of the Gram Panchayat over the suit lands. Resultantly the Gram Panchayat, was declared to be owner of the disputed lands, but with a direction that it shall maintai