CWP No.12396 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision : 21.12.2010 CWP No.12396 of 2010 Bakshish Singh and others ......Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CWP No.18556 of 2010 Avtar Singh and others ....Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and others CWP No.18557 of 2010 Angrej Singh and others .....Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CWP No.18581 of 2010 Mohinder Singh and others ......Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.12396, 18556, 18557 and 18581 of 2010, as they involve adjudication of identical questions of law and fact. Facts necessary for adjudication of these writ petitions are being CWP No.12396 of 2010 2 taken from CWP No.12396 of 2010. The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing orders dated 30.12.2009 and and 18.1.2007, passed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab (exercising the powers of the Commissioner and the Collector,Panchayat Land Jalandhar Amritsar-cum Divisional Deputy Director (P.R) Jalandhar. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in continuous possession as proprietors of the land in dispute, created after applying a pro-rata cut on the holdings of proprietors of the village, during consolidation. The Gram Panchayat, therefore, has no right, title or interest in the land in dispute. It is further submitted that as the land is Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat and in possession of Maqbuza Malkan prior to 1950, the Gram Panchayat has no right, title or interest in the land in dispute. It is further submitted that authorities under the Act have ignored judgements of this court, which clearly establish that the land in dispute does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. It is further submitted that as the land in dispute is bachat land, left over after utilisation of the land during consolidation, the land does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and express my inability to accept the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners. The Gram Panchayat filed a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') for ejectment of the petitioners. The petitioners opposed the application and in turn filed a petition under Section 11 of the Act, pleading therein that as the land in dispute is not Shamilat Deh, it does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. The petitioners also pleaded that they are in continuous CWP No.12396 of 2010 3 possession of the land in dispute before 1950 as proprietors and as the land was described as Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat prior to consolidation, it does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat, filed a response pleading that the petitioners are unauthorised occupants and denied that the petitioners are in continuous possession from 1950. The Gram Panchayat also alleged that the petitioners have occupied the land for the last three years. The Collector, after due consideration of the pleadings and the evidence on record, recorded a finding that the petitioners are neither co- sharers nor proprietors of the village, as they settled in the village after migrating from Pakistan. The Collector also held that the petitioners have failed to prove their possession prior to 1950 or that the land was Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat in their possession as co-sharers and proprietors, prior to 1950. The Collector has also recorded a finding of fact that the petitioners had taken the land on lease from the Gram Panchayat and cannot be allowed to deny the title of the Gram Panchayat. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab on 30.12.2009 by affirming the findings recorded by the Collector. I find no reason, whether in law or on fact to interfere with findings recorded by authorities under the Act. The petitioners have failed to adduce any evidence to even prima facie establish their status as co- sharers/proprietors in the land in dispute. The petitioners are not proprietors as they migrated to the village upon partition of the country. The plea that the land was Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat, even if true, would not exclude this land from Shamilat Deh, as Section 2(g)(i) of the Act clearly CWP No.12396 of 2010 4 postulates that land described in the revenue record as `Shamiat Deh' shall vest in the Gram Panchayat. The expression `Hasad Rasad Khewat' reflects the shareholding of proprietors before the enactment of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1954 and the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The plea that the land was created after applying a pro-rata cut on the holdings of proprietors is a contradiction in terms, as land created after applying a pro-rata cut is recorded as Jumla Mustarka Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Arazi Hasab Rasad Raqba and not as Shamilat Deh. Another plea that the land is bachat land, merits summary rejection, as no such evidence has been adduced or placed on record. The petitioners, in my considered opinion, are unauthorised occupants of panchayat land, who seek to perpetuate their illegal possession by raising frivolous pleas of ownership. The petition filed under Section 11 of the Act and the appeal have been rightly dismissed. In view of what has been stated herein above, the writ petition is without merit and is dismissed. 21.12.2010 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE