MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE SIRHIND versus PARSHOTAM DASS AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 678 · Decided: 15-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE SIRHIND 
v. 
PARSHOTAM DASS AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 15, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY A.1\lD G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Land Acquisition Act 1894-Section 30. 
Gram Panchayat lands-Municipal limits extended to a pa1t of it by 
C notification-Acquisition by State Govemment-Dispute as to apportion-
ment-Held, 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-17ie Punjab Municipal Act 1911-Section 56-17ie 
Punjab Gram Panchayat Act 1952-Section 4-17ie Punjab Village Common 
D Lands (Regulation) Act 1961-Section 2(g), 3. 
Respondents are Khewatdars of village Brahman Majra. A repre-
sentative suit was filed by !he respondents in respect of certain lands. 
According to respondents these lands were 'Shamlat deb' and were under 
Nagar Panchayat. Municipal Limits of Sirhind Municipality was extended 
E 
by a Notification and the disputed area came under the Municipal Limits. 
Respondents claimed that Gram Sabha of the village having been 
abolished, the lands reverted to the original Khewartdars under the 
Proviso to Rule 3 of the Gram Panchayat Rules 1965. 
F 
The said lands came to be acquired by Punjab Government for the 
construction of godown for storing foodgrains. The Collector passed an 
award and a reference was made to District Judge under Section 30 of the ' 
Land Acquisition Act and the compensation was determined in favour of 
respondents. The Collector ordered for the mutation and in a revision, the 
Financial Commissioner set aside the above order and directed that 
G mutation be made in favour of Appellants. A declaratory suit was filed by 
the respondents in respect of the said lands together with permanent 
injunct~on against appellants and it was allowed by the Trial Judge. 
District Judge confirmed the finding of the Trial Court and dismissed the 
appeal of tlie appellants. Appellant's second appeal to the High Court was 
H also dismissed. Hence these appeals. 
678 
MUNICIPAL COMMIITEE SIRHIND v. PARSHOTAM DASS 
679 
Appellants contended that on the admitted position that the dis-
A 
puted land was part of 'Shamlat deb' and was owned by Gram Panchayat 
of village Brahman Majra by operation of law, it stood vested in Sirhind 
Municipality on and from the date of the notification issued extending the 
Municipal Limits of Sirhind Municipality. Provision to Rule 3 of Gram 
Panchayat Rules does not apply and therefore directions to revest the title 
with Khewatdars was wrong. It was also contended that under the 
provisions of the punjab Municipal Act 1911, the disputed property be-
came a part of Sirhind Municipality and Municipal Committee of Sirhind 
is the real owner. 
B 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that under the C 
provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act 1961 
any land which vests in Panchayat under the shamlat 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 Shamlat law 
and therefore the title vests in the respondents and not in the Municipality. D 
Allowing the appeal, this Cou!1· 
HELD : 1.1. The expression 'Whole' in Section 4(3) 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 E 
part of the Sabha area becomes a part of the municipality and it ceases to 
be a part of the Gram Panchayat. Rule 3 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat 
Rules 1965 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, contonment, city, urban estate or notified area, rights, obliga-
tions, property,._ assets and liabilities, if any, whether arising out of any F 
contract or otherwise shall vest in the Municipal Committee, Contonment 
Board, Municipal Corporation, Chief Administrator or Notified Area 
Committee as the case may be. Therefore in respect of the disputed proper-
ties in the case in hand which originally formed a part of sabha area of 
Village Brahman Majra having been included in municipal limits of Sir- G 
hind 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 in the khewatdars as found by the courts below. [684-D-F, 685-G] 
1.2. A combine

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.