TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the revenue entries in the jamabandis could prevail over the Sharat Wajib ul Arz and the classification of the land so as to displace the finding that the land was Shamlat Deh used for village common purposes; (ii) whether the petitioners proved individual cultivating possession before 26 January 1950 so as to attract the saving clause under Section 2(g)(viii) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961; (iii) whether the land was shown to be Bachat land reserved for re-partition or re-allotment in favour of the petitioners.
Issue (i): Whether the revenue entries in the jamabandis could prevail over the Sharat Wajib ul Arz and the classification of the land so as to displace the finding that the land was Shamlat Deh used for village common purposes.
Analysis: The entries in the ownership and cultivation columns were not treated as isolated and conclusive. The classification of the land as Gairmumkin Pahar, Bhur, Tilla and Banjar Kadim showed it to be uncultivable. The Sharat Wajib ul Arz recorded common village use, including use for grazing, collection of fuel and stone, and other common purposes. In the absence of rebutting evidence, the presumption attached to the Sharat Wajib ul Arz was not displaced, and the revenue entries were treated as mere paper entries that could not defeat the common rights of the village proprietary body.
Conclusion: The land was held to be Shamlat Deh land used for village common purposes, and the challenge based on the jamabandi entries failed.
Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners proved individual cultivating possession before 26 January 1950 so as to attract the saving clause under Section 2(g)(viii) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.
Analysis: To bring the land within the saving clause, cogent proof of independent cultivating possession before the cut-off date was necessary. No such evidence was produced. The absence of supporting Khasra Girdawaris or other reliable proof meant that the petitioners could not establish exclusive cultivating possession or entitlement under the statutory exception.
Conclusion: The saving clause under Section 2(g)(viii) was not attracted, and no title in favour of the petitioners was established.
Issue (iii): Whether the land was shown to be Bachat land reserved for re-partition or re-allotment in favour of the petitioners.
Analysis: The petitioners failed to prove that the land had been reserved as Bachat land after consolidation or that any pro rata cut had created a right of re-partition in their favour. On the contrary, the materials supported the conclusion that the land continued to serve village common purposes and that mutation in favour of the Gram Panchayat was valid.
Conclusion: The plea that the land was Bachat land available for re-partition or re-allotment was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were upheld, the writ petitions failed for want of merit, and the contempt petition also did not survive.
Ratio Decidendi: Where village land is shown by the Sharat Wajib ul Arz and surrounding revenue material to be used for common village purposes, uncultivable, and unsupported by evidence of independent pre-1950 cultivating possession, the statutory exception to Shamlat Deh is not available and revenue entries alone do not confer exclusive title.
TaxTMI 
