http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE SIRHIND

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: PARSHOTAM DASS AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       15/02/1996

BENCH: G.B. PATTANAIK (J) BENCH: G.B. PATTANAIK (J) RAMASWAMY, K.

CITATION:  JT 1996 (2)   504        1996 SCALE  (2)351

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T G.B. PATTANAIK, J.      Leave granted.      This appeal by way of special leave is directed against the judgment  of Punjab  and Haryana  High Court  in Regular Second Appeal No. 1187 of 1989 arising out of a suit against the defendant Municipal Committee for a declaration that the land entered  in Khewat  No. 391  measuring  321  Kanals  14 Marlas and  in Khewat No. 392 measuring 1197 Kanals 5 Marlas in village  Brahman Majra, Tehsil Sirhind as fully described in para  A and  B of  the plaint  are the  properties of the plaintiffs and  they are the khewatdars and defendant should be permanently injuncted from dispossessing the plaintiffs.      The plaintiffs’  case in  nutshell  is  that  they  are khewatdars of  village Brahman Majra and they filed the suit in representative  capacity under  Order I  Rule 8 C.P.C. It was alleged that Khasra No. 391 and 392 measuring 321 Kanals 14 Marlas  in Khewat  No. 392 measuring 1197 Kanals 5 Marlas respectively are  ’Shamlat  deh’  and  it  was  under  Nagar Panchayat. By  a Notification  dated 18.9.1968 the Municipal Limits of  Sirhind Municipality was extended covering a part of Gram  Sabha area of Nagar Panchayat and the disputed area came under  the Municipal Limits. lt is further averred that Gram Sabha  of the  village having been abolished, the lands in question  reverted to  the original  khewatdars under the proviso  to  Rule  3  of  the  Gram  Panchayat  Rules,  1965 (hereinafter  referred  to  as  ’the  Rules’).  When  Punjab Government  acquired   a  portion   of  the  said  land  for construction of  godown for storing foodgrains, an award was passed on 19.3.1977 by Collector, Patiala and thereafter the reference having  been made  to  the  District  Judge  under Section 30  of the  Land Acquisition  Act, the said District Judge determined  the compensation  to  be  payable  to  the plaintiffs even  though the  defendant - Municipal Committee also  claimed  compensation.  The  said  decision  therefore operates as  res judicata  against   the  defendant  in  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

present proceeding.  It  was    also  further  averred  that mutation was  ordered in   favour  of the  plaintiffs by the Collector by  Order dated 8.8.1975. A revision being carried out by  the Municipal Committee, the Financial  commissioner set aside  the said  order by  his order dated 13.5.1982 and directed mutation  in favour  of   Municipal  Committee  and therefore the  plaintiffs   filed the suit for the relief as already stated.   The defendant - Municipal Committee in the written  statement took the stand that the disputed property though ’Shamlat  deh’ was  a part of Gram Sabha. But  on and from the  date of  issuance of  notification   extending the Municipal limits  of Sirhind over the area, it formed a part of the  Municipality and   therefore the Municipal Committee has right,  title   and interest  to the  land. It  was also further   averred that  the compensation  amount having been awarded in  favour of  the plaintiffs on a finding  that the acquired  land   forms  a  part  of  plaintiffs  proprietary interest, the  principle of  res judicata will not apply. On these pleadings  the learned Trial Judge framed as many as 7 issues and  on issues  1 to  3 came  to conclusion  that the plaintiffs are  the khewatdars of village Brahman Majra, and are owners  of the  suit land  and the ownership of the land vests with  the proprietor  of the  village and  not in  the Municipal Committee.  On issue  no. 4  the Trial Judge found that the  question of title to the suit land has finally and conclusively been decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala  in reference  under Section  30 of  the Land Acquisition Act  and  the  said  decision  operates  as  res judicata in  the present  proceedings. On  issue No.  6  the learned Trial  Judge came  to hold  that valid  notice under Section 49  of the Punjab Municipal Act had been duly served upon the  defendant before  filing of the present suit. With these findings  the suit  having been decreed. The defendant carried  the   matter  in  appeal.  The  learned  Additional District Judge,  Patiala confirmed the findings of the Trial Judge and  dismissed the  appeal. The  defendant - Municipal Committee then  carried the  matter to  the  High  Court  in Second Appeal  and  the  same  having  been  dismissed,  the defendant - Municipal Committee has approached this Court.      Learned counsel for the appellant contended that on the admitted position  that the  disputed land  was  a  part  of ’Shamlat deh’  and was  owned by  Gram Panchayat  of village Brahman Mavira  by operation  of  law  it  stood  vested  in Sirhind Municipality  on and  from the date the notification was  issued   extending  the  Municipal  Limits  of  Sirhind Municipality. The  Courts below  committed serious  error in applying proviso  to Rule  3 of the Gram Panchayat Rules and directing  revesting  of  the  title  with  khewatdars.  The learned counsel also contended that in the proceedings under Section 30  of the  Land Acquisition  Act the  court  having specifically found  that the  acquired land  belonged to the proprietor. It  was not  necessary for  the court to examine the question  as to  whether  ’Shamlat  deh’  vests  in  the Municipality or not and any finding on that score is without jurisdiction and  therefore  it  does  not  operate  as  res judicata in  the present proceedings. Lastly learned counsel submitted that  under the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Act. 1911  the disputed  property became  a part  of Sirhind Municipality and therefore Municipal Committee of Sirhind is the real  owner and  courts below  was in error in declaring the plaintiffs  - khewatdars to be the owner of the disputed property.      Mr. K.  Madhave Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs - respondents on the other hand contended that under the provisions of The Punjab Village Common Lands

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

(Regulation) Act,  1961 (hereinafter  referred  to  as  ’the Common Lands  Act’), any land which vests in Panchayat under the shamilat  law, the right, title and interest in the same gets revested  in the  person or  persons in  whom they were vested immediately  before the  commencement of the shamilat law and  therefore the title vests in the plaintiffs and not in the Municipality.      In view  of the  rival stand  of the parties and on the admitted position  that the  disputed land was ’Shamlat deh’ and had  formed a  part of  Gram  Sabha,  the  question  for consideration is  whether the  said  land  vested  with  the Municipality by virtue of provisions contained in the Punjab Municipal Act  1911 and  The Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 or it  revested with  the khewatdars  under the  The  Punjab Village Common  Lands (Regulation)  Act, 1961? The answer to the aforesaid question depends upon scrutiny and analysis of different provisions  of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, The Punjab Gram  Panchayat Act,  1952  and  The  Punjab  Village Common Lands  (Regulation)  Act,  1961.  It  would  also  be necessary to examine the provisions of Gram Panchayat Rules, 1965 as  courts below  have decided the question by applying proviso to  Rule 3  of the  aforesaid Rules.  Under the Gram Panchayat Act  the expression  ’Sabha’ is defined in Section 2(mm) to  mean a Gram Sabha established under Section 5. The expression ’Gram  Panchayat’ is  defined in  Section 2(g) to mean  the   Panchayat  constituted   under  Section  6.  The expression ’Sabha area’ is defined in Section 2(mmm) to mean an area  declared to  be a sabha area under Section 4. Under Section 4  occurring in  Chapter II  the State Government is empowered by notification to declare any village or group or contiguous villages  with a  population of not less than one hundred to  constitute A  sabha  area.  Sub-Section  (2)  of Section 4  empowers the  State Government by notification to include any  area or  exclude any  area from the Sabha area. Sub-Section (3)  of Section  4 provides for the consequences of issuance  of notification  u/s 4(2)  which  is  extracted hereinbelow in extenso:      "If whole  of  the  Sabha  area  is      included  in  an  urban  estate  to      which the  provisions of the Punjab      Municipal Act,  1911 are applicable      or   in    a   City,   municipality      cantonment or  notified area  under      any  law  for  the  time  being  in      force,  the   Sabha  and  the  Gram      Panchayat for that area shall cease      to  exist   and  the   assets   and      liabilities of  the Gram Panchayat,      shall  be   disposed  of   in   the      prescribed manner.      But a  contention has been advanced which  found favour with the  courts below  that unless  the   whole land of the Sabha area  is included  in  an    urban  estate  under  the provisions of  Punjab Municipal  Act, then no vesting of the Sabha area   with  the municipality. We are unable to accept this contention since the expression ’whole’ in  sub-Section (3) of  Section 4  of the Punjab Gram  Panchayat Act must be held to  be including  a ’part’   and therefore if a part of the Sabha  area. is   included  within the  municipal limits then that  part   of the  Sabha area  becomes a  part of the municipality and  it  ceases  to  be  a  part  of  the  Gram Panchayat. Section  8 of  the  Gram  Panchayat  Act    stood deleted from  the Gram  Panchayat Act  in the    year  1962. Section 4(3)  extracted above  was added  to the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act  with effect  from 14.7.1978.  The Punjab Gram

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

Panchayat Rules,  1965  had been framed in exercise of power under Section   101  of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act by the State Government. Rule 3 is the rule for disposal of  assets and liabilities  of Gram Sabha. The said  rule provides that if the whole of the Sabha area is included in a municipality cantonment  cite,  urban  estate  or  notified  are  rights, obligations,   property, assests  and liabilities,  if  any, whether arising  out of any contract or otherwise shall vest in the  Municipal  Committee,  Cantonment  Board  (Municipal Corporation, Chief Administrator or Notified Area Committee, as the case may be).      Section 3  of the  Rules together  with the  proviso is extracted hereinbelow in extenso:      "Disposal    of     assests     and      liabilities of  Gram Sabha, Section      4(3): If  the whole   of Sabha area      is  included  in  a    municipality      contonment or  notified area,   all      rights, obligations property assets      and  liabilities  if  any,  whether      arising   out of  any  contract  or      otherwise   shall   vest   in   the      Municipal   Committee    contonment      board and/or  N.A.C. as  the   case      may be.           Provided that  the land  which      vests in  the Panchayat  under  the      Punjab  village      Common   Lands      (Regulation) Act,  1961 or the land      management  and  control  of  which      vests in  the Panchayat  under  the      East        Punjab         Holdings      (Consolidations and  preventions of      fragmentation)  Act,  1948    shall      revert to the co-sharers and owners      thereof."      Under the  Punjab Municipal Act, 1911  chapter II deals with the procedure for  constituting municipalities. Section 4(2) provides  for defining  the limits of the local area of the    municipality  by issuance  of  notification.  Section 4(9)  empowers  the  State  Government  by  notification  to constitute a  Municipal Committee.  Section  5  of  the  Act empowers the  State Government  to alter  the limits  of the municipality. Sub-Section  (6) of  Section  5  provides  the effect of  an area  being included in the municipality. Sub- Section  (6)(e)(iii)   of  Section   5  provides   that  all properties,  movable  and  immovable,  together  with    all interests of  whatsoever nature and kind  therein, vested in the Municipal  Committee or  notified area committee, as the case may  be, of   such  local area,  immediately before the aforesaid  date,  shall  vest  in  the  successor  Municipal Committee. Section  56 provides  that all property  situated within the  municipality shall  vest in  and   be under  the control of the committee.      A combined  reading of the aforesaid  provisions of the Gram Panchayat  Act, the  Rules   made  thereunder  and  the Punjab Municipal  Act   unequivocally indicate  that on  and from the  date of   issuance of a notification extending the municipal  limits over a part of the sabha area that part of the sabha  area forms  a part of the municipality and  it is the municipality  on whom right, title and interest over the area vests.  It  is  difficult  to    accept  the  reasoning advanced by  the courts  below   that only  when the  entire sabha area  comes  within  the  municipal  limits  then  the property vests and  not otherwise. In our considered opinion

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

the expression ’whole’ in Section 4(3) of the Gram Panchayat Act  brings within  its sweep  also a  part of the sabha area and therefore the disputed properties in the case in hand  which originally  formed a  part of  sabha area  of village Brahman  Majra having  been  included  in  municipal limits  of   Sirhind  Municipality   by  notification  dated 18.9.1968, it  is the  municipality on whom the right, title and interest of the property vested and it never revested at the khewatdars  as found  by the  courts below.  The  courts below including the High Court not only committed error in interpreting Section 4(3) of the Gram Panchayat Act but also committed error  in relying  upon proviso  to Rule  3 of the Gram Panchayat Rules since on the date when the notification was  issued   extending  the  municipal  limits  of  Sirhind Municipality on 18.9.1968 Section 4(3) of the Gram Panchayat Act was not in force and therefore the Rule 3 could not have operated upon.  As has been stated earlier Section 56 of the Municipal Act  and Section  4 of the Gram Panchayat Act make the legislative  intention clear  that when  a part  of  the sabha area  gets included within the municipal limits of any municipality the  property comprised  therein vests with the Municipal  Committee.   In  this  view  of  the  matter  the plaintiffs who were the original khewatdars cannot claim the property in  question   and it  is  the  municipality  which continues to be the owner of the disputed property.      In this  connection it  would be  appropriate to notice the arguments  advanced by  Mr. Madhave  Reddy, the  learned counsel for  the respondents. The learned counsel urged that the property  being admittedly a ’Shamlat deh’, by virtue of Section 3  of the  Punjab Village  Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961,  which has  been given  retrospective effect, the ’Shamlat deh’ property stand reverted to khewatdars. Section 3(2) of  Punjab Village  Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 is extracted hereinbelow in extenso:      "(2)    Notwithstanding    anything      contained  in  sub-section  (1)  of      section 4--      (i)  where any land has vested in a      Panchayat under  the  shamlat  law,      but such  land has  been   excluded      from shamlat deh underclause (g) of      section 2  other than  the land  so      excluded under sub-clause (ii-a) of      that clause,  all rights, title and      interest of  the Panchayat  in such      land as  from   the commencement of      the  Punjab  Village  Common  Lands      (Regulation) Amendment  Act,  1995,      shall cease  and all  such  rights,      title and  interest shall  vest  in      the person  or persons in whom they      were vested, immediately before the      commencement of  the shamlat law;      (ii) where any land has vested in a      Panchayat under  this Act, but such      land     has  been   excluded  from      shamlat deh  under  sub-clause (ii-      a) of  clause (g) of section 2, all      rights, title  and interest  of the      Panchayat in  such  land,  as  from      the  commencement   of  the  Punjab      Village Common  Lands  (Regulation)      Amendment Act., 1995, shall, cease,      and  all  such  rights,  title  and      interest shall on or before the 9th

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

    day of  July, 1985,  revest in  the      person or  persons to whom the land      so excluded  has been  allotted  or      otherwise transferred by sale or by      any   other    manner   whatsoever,      subject to the condition that--      (a) any  sum of  money realised  by      the  Rehabilitation  Department  of      the  Government   of  Punjab  as  a      result of  allotment or transfer of      such land  shall alongwith interest      at  the  rate  of  three  per  cent      payable  from   the  date  of  such      allotment or transfer; or      (b) where  no money  was realisable      by the Rehabilitation Department of      the   Government  of  Punjab  as  a      result of  allotment or transfer of      such   land,    the    amount    of      compensation  in  respect  of  such      land as determined by the Collector      of the  District in  which  such  a      land is situated alongwith interest      at  the  rate  of  three  per  cent      payable from  the date of allotment      or transfer, as the case may be;      shall be paid by the Rehabilitation      Department  of  the  Government  of      Punjab to  the Department  of Rural      Development  and    Panchayats  for      onward    disbursement    to    the      Panchayat to which such shamlat deh      belonged."      Sub-section (2)  of Section  3 would  be attracted only when land  vested in  Municipal Committee  Sirhind has  been excluded from  ’Shamlat deh’  as defined  in clause  (g)  of Section 2  of the  said Act.  Section 2(g)  has 9  exclusion clauses but  there is not an iota of materials on record and in fact  the case  in hand  has not  been examined from that angle to establish that the disputed property stood excluded from ’Shamlat  deh’ by  operation of  any of the sub clauses which excludes  from the  definition  of  ’Shamlat  deh’  in Section 2(g).  In that  view of the matter the contention of Mr. Madhava Reddy cannot be sustained.      The courts  below erroneously  came to  conclusion that the findings  of the  court in  the earlier proceeding under Section 30 of the Land  Acquisition Act would operate as res judicata, since  on examination  of the  orders of the court under Section  30, we  find that  positive finding have been arrived at  to the  effect that  the disputed land which had been acquired  belong to the claimants and not the Municipal Committee. In view  of this finding it was not necessary for the court  to examine  the question  of title  of  Municipal Committee and  therefore anything  stated on  that  score is wholly without  jurisdiction  and  as  such    the  findings thereon cannot  operate  as  res  judicata  in  the  present proceeding.      In the  aforesaid premise the judgement and  decrees of the courts  below  are  set  aside.  It  is  held  that  the Municipal Committee  Sirhind is the proprietor with whom the disputed land vested. The  plaintiffs suit accordingly stand dismissed. This  appeal is  allowed but in the circumstances without any order as to costs.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7