2024 (2) TMI 1398 - HC - Indian Laws

Assigning of a declaratory decree quashed - classification of disputed land - entry of Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasab Khewat exist in the jamabandis or not - HELD THAT - The classification as, assigned to the disputed lands in the apposite classification column, thus also prima facie makes the disputed lands to be unamenable for cultivation. If so, since within the scope of the above extracted savings clause to the definition of Shamlat Deh, it is but imperative, that the suit lands were amenable to cultivation, whereas, ex facie the import of the classification, assigned to the disputed lands, is that, they are uncultivable, thereby the petitioners who otherwise have also not brought forth any evidence suggestive that they earlier had or as of now rather made them cultivable, thus through theirs adducing the relevant Khasra Girdawaris, thereupon the disputed lands with the above classifications, are evidently untillable or uncultivable. The present petitioners cannot claim that they had at any time made them exclusively cultivable for their benefit, and, to the deprivation of the other members of the village proprietary body. Prior to the holding of the consolidations operations, the lands were used for the common purpose of the entire village community, and, thereby were kept intact in the very same manner, resulting in a valid mutation of ownership becoming attested qua the Gram Panchayat concerned, vis-a-vis, the disputed lands. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the impugned orders dated 01.06.2006 and 07.03.2006.
2. Interpretation of revenue entries in jamabandis.
3. Classification of disputed lands.
4. Reference to Sharat Wajib ul Arz.
5. Petitioners' claim to re-partition and redistribution of disputed lands.
6. Evidence of independent cultivating possession prior to 1950.
7. Legitimacy of mutation order in favor of the Panchayat.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Impugned Orders:
The writ petitions challenge the orders dated 01.06.2006 and 07.03.2006 passed by the Commissioner and Collector, respectively, which quashed the declaratory decree granted by the Assistant Collector. The court held that the impugned orders were valid and upheld them, dismissing the writ petitions.

2. Interpretation of Revenue Entries in Jamabandis:
The petitioners contended that the disputed lands were listed as owned by "Shamlat Deh Hasab Hissa Malkiat" and cultivated by "Makbooja Malkan" in the jamabandis, suggesting they were Bachat Lands. However, the court emphasized that these entries must be read in conjunction with other references and classifications, particularly those in the Sharat Wajib ul Arz, which depicted the lands as Shamlat Deh and used for common village purposes.

3. Classification of Disputed Lands:
The classification column in the jamabandis categorized the disputed lands as "Gairmumkin Pahar, Bhur, Tilla, Banjar Kadim," indicating they were uncultivable. This classification supported the conclusion that the lands were not suitable for individual cultivation and were used for common purposes.

4. Reference to Sharat Wajib ul Arz:
The Sharat Wajib ul Arz described the disputed lands as used for pastures, collecting fuel, and stones for construction by the village community. The court found that the references in the Sharat Wajib ul Arz were conclusive and supported the classification of the lands as Shamlat Deh, used for common purposes.

5. Petitioners' Claim to Re-Partition and Redistribution:
The petitioners argued that they were entitled to re-partition and redistribution of the disputed lands based on the revenue entries. However, the court held that these entries did not confer any exclusive right, title, or interest to the petitioners, especially in the absence of evidence proving independent cultivating possession prior to 1950.

6. Evidence of Independent Cultivating Possession Prior to 1950:
The court noted that the petitioners failed to provide evidence, such as Khasra Girdawaris, demonstrating independent cultivating possession of the disputed lands prior to 1950. This lack of evidence weakened their claim to exclusive rights over the lands.

7. Legitimacy of Mutation Order in Favor of the Panchayat:
The court concluded that the mutation order, which conferred right, title, and interest over the disputed lands to the Panchayat, was lawful. The lands were used for common village purposes before and after consolidation operations, and the mutation order was a valid recognition of this usage.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petitions and the contempt petition, affirming the impugned orders. The classification of the disputed lands as Shamlat Deh used for common purposes was upheld, and the petitioners' claims to exclusive rights were rejected due to the lack of supporting evidence.