JUDGMENT
V.M. Jain, J.
1. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, whereby the appeal filed by the defendant, was allowed, the judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed.
2. Facts, in brief, are that the plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration against the defendant-Gram Panchayat, with the allegations that the plaintiffs were the owners in possession of the suit property and that the defendant had no right, title or interest in the suit land. It was alleged that the defendant was recorded as owner of the agricultural land in dispute measuring 70 kanals 1 marla and that the father of the plaintiffs had entered into a contract of cultivation to the effect that the plaintiffs and their successor-in-interest would continue to cultivate the said land as owners and that the defendant/owner and their successor would not eject the plaintiffs and their-successors-in-in-terest from the suit land. It was alleged that this agreement was made about 100 years back and that now the plaintiffs had acquired occupancy rights under Section 5 and 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act read with Section 3 of he Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953. It was alleged that the defendant had no right, title or interest in the suit land and the revenue entries in the name of the defendant, as owner of the suit land, were wrong and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs.
3. In the written statement, filed by the defendant-Gram Panchayat, various preliminary objections were taken. On merits, it was alleged that the defendant-Gram Panchayat was the exclusive owner in possession of the suit land and the plaintiffs had no concern with the same. Existence of any agreement was denied by the defendant and it was alleged that prior to 1952, there was no Gram Panchayat and as such, the question of any agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant, did not arise. It was alleged that the plaintiffs had not acquired occupancy rights. It was alleged that infact the plaintiffs never cultivated the suit land as tenants. It was alleged that the plaintiffs had
no concern with the suit land in any capacity.
4. After hearing both the sides the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs, holding that the plaintiffs had acquired occupancy rights under Section 5 of the Punjab Tenancy Act read with Section 3 of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietory Rights) Act, 1953, and as such, the plaintiffs had become the owners in possession of the suit land by acquiring ownership rights. The appeal, filed by the defendant-Gram Panchayat, was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, the judgment and decree of the trial Court were set aside and the suit, filed by the plaintiffs, was dismissed, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that they had become owners in possession of the suit property by acquiring occupancy rights. It was held that infact the plaintiffs had no locus standi to file the present suit and that the suit was not maintainable in the present form. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, the plaintiffs have now filed the present Regular Second Appeal in this Court.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the record carefully.
6. It was submitted before me by learned counsel for the appellants that the plaintiffs had acquired occupancy rights under Section 5 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 read with Section 3 of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietory Rights) Act, 1953 and that the lower appellate Court had erred in law in holding that the plaintiffs were required to prove their possession over the suit property for more than 12 years, on the commencement of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act. It was submitted that the provisions of this Act would have no application to the facts of the present case.
7. However, I find no force in these submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants. It may be that under the provisions of Punjab Tenancy Act read with Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietory Rights) Act, 1953, the plaintiffs may be able to show that they had acquired ownership rights in respect of the suit property. However, since the dispute of the plaintiff is with the Gram Panchayat (in whom and suit land had vested), the provisions of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act would also be relevant. Under Section 4(1) of this Act, it has been provided that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law for the time being in force, etc., all rights, title or interest whatever in the land, which is included in the Shamilat deh of any village and which was not vested in a Panchayat under the Shamilat Law, shall at the commencement of the said Act, vest in the Panchayat. Under Sub-section (3), it is provided that nothing contained in Sub Section (1) shall affect or shall be deemed ever to have affected the existing rights, title or interest of persons who are recorded as Dholidars, etc. and that the rights of the persons, we were in cultivating possession of the Shamilat Deh for more than 12 years immediately proceeding the commencement of the said Act, without payment of rent etc.
8. From a perusal of the above, it would be clear that the rights of those persons, who are in cultivating possession of the Shamilat Deh for more than 12 years immediately preceeding the commencement of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, without payment of rent, etc., shall not be affected by the provisions of Section 4(1) of the said Act, whereby all rights, title or interest in the land, which is included in Shamilat Deh of any Village, shall vest in a Panchayat. This would mean that only those persons who are found to be in cultivating possession of the Shamilat land 12 years prior to the commencement of the aforesaid Act, would be entitled to claim, under the general law i.e, under the Punjab Tenancy Act read with Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietory Rights) Act, 1953, that they had become the owners of the property being the occupancy tenants. However, those persons, who are not in possession of the property 12 years preceeding to the commencement of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, shall not be entitled to claim that they were occupancy
tenants and they had acquired occupancy, rights. This is so because Section 4 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, starts with the words “notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law for the time being in force”. Thus, the provisions of Section 4 of this Act would have precedence over the provisions of Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietory Rights) Act, 1953.
9. In view of the above, in my opinion, the learned Addl. District Judge was perfectly justified in holding that so far as the present case was concerned, it could not be said that the plaintiffs had acquired occupancy rights and had become the owners of the suit property. This is specially so, when the suit land had vested in the Gram Panchayat. It was found by the learned Additional District Judge that on the file, for the first time in the jamabandi for the year 1966-67 (Ex.P1), the possession of the ancestors of the plaintiffs was recorded and except the oral evidence, there is nothing on the record to show that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property prior to 1966-67. That being so, in my opinion, the plaintiffs could not be allowed to urge that the suit land had vested in them or that they had acquired occupancy rights.
10. In view of my detailed discussion above, there is no merit in the present appeal. Even otherwise, there is no substantial question of law involved in this Appeal. Hence,
the present Appeal is dismissed.