JUDGMENT :

Tribhuvan Dahiya, J. 

1. This is plaintiffs/appellants' first appeal against the judgment and decree of reversal, dated 15.01.1992, passed by the First Appellate Court.

2. The plaintiffs/appellants with defendant/respondent no.2 filed a suit for declaration and injunction, dated 19.12.1984, claiming to be owners/proprietors in possession of land measuring 532 kanals, 3 marlas situated within revenue estate of village Papri, Tehsil (now District) Palwal, as per their shares recorded in jamabandi for the year 1951-52. It was pleaded that during the consolidation of holdings the suit land had been given to them in lieu of their land comprising in khewat no.1, khatoni no.1 to 27. However, the authorities wrongly entered the name of defendant/respondent no.1/Gram Panchayat, Yadupur, in the revenue record as owner qua this land. This deletion of their names, as also of their predecessors-in-interest, as owners of the suit land was in violation of provisions of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Act of 1948') and the rules made thereunder. There was no area of shamlat deh in village Papri prior to consolidation, nor had the Gram Panchayat ever exercised its right of ownership against the suit land. Once they started threatening to interfere with the plaintiffs/appellants' possession on the basis of wrong revenue entries, the instant suit for declaration was filed.

2.1. The suit was contested by defendant/respondent no.1/Gram Panchayat, disputing the plaintiffs/appellants' claim of ownership. The suit land according to them was a shamlat deh land, which was reserved during consolidation proceedings and had been vested in the Panchayat for the benefit of village community and their common purposes. It was also pleaded that the orders of consolidation and revenue authorities to that effect were never challenged by the plaintiffs/appellants in any Court; the same attained finality and could not be challenged after a period of about thirty years.

2.2. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by the trial Court:

1) Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land as alleged, if so, to what effect? OPP

2) Whether the civil court has got no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD

3) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD

4) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their acts and conduct to file the present suit? OPD

5) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is false and frivolous and the same is liable to be dismissed with special costs? OPD

6) Relief.

2.3. The trial Court decreed the suit in the plaintiffs/appellants' favour holding them to be owners of the suit land and that Civil Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter. The Gram Panchayat went in appeal against it wherein the findings were reversed by the lower Appellate Court and the suit was dismissed with costs vide impugned judgment and decree dated 15.01.1992. The trial Court judgment was reversed mainly on three grounds; firstly, it was held, as the order of consolidation authorities had not been challenged by the plaintiffs/appellants before the Appellate or Divisional Authorities under the Act of 1948, the same could not be assailed in the civil suit; secondly, the suit was held to be barred by limitation as it had been filed after thirty years of entry of mutation in favour of the Gram Panchayat and recording of the subsequent jamabandi; and, thirdly, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide the issue as per the provisions of Section 44 of the Act of 1948.

3. In this factual background, learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants argued that the judgment passed by the lower Appellate Court was not sustainable since the Consolidation Scheme, though framed on 13.01.1954, had never come into effect. It was framed for village Papri which was in uninhabited/bey chirag village as per revenue record and never came into existence.