CWP No.57 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.57 of 2010 Date of Decision: 20.1.2010 Joginder Singh and another .....Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. P.S. Rana, Advocate for the petitioners. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioners challenge the order dated 27.2.2008, passed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department,Punjab, Chandigarh, allowing an appeal filed by the Panchayat under Section 11(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act,1961 and setting aside the order dated 25.9.2006, passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (D), Hoshiarpur. The petitioners filed an application under Section 11 of the Act, asserting that the land does not vest in the Gram Panchayat, as they are in possession before 1950. The Gram Panchayat denied the correctness of these averments by pleading that the land belongs to the Panchayat and in the absence of any evidence to support the petitioners assertion, the petition should be dismissed. The Additional Deputy Commissioner (Development), Hoshiarpur, exercising the powers of the Collector, allowed the application by holding that as the petitioners have proved that they were in possession CWP No.57 of 2010 2 before 1950, the land does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the Gram Panchayat filed an appeal. Vide order dated 27.2.2008, the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab, exercising the powers of the Commissioner under the Act, accepted the appeal, set aside the order passed by the Collector and held that the petitioners have failed to prove their possession prior to the enforcement of the Act. Counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the jamabandis on record the petitioners and before them their predecessors are recorded in individual cultivating possession of the land in dispute, prior to 1950. In view of Section 2(g)(5)(iii) of the Act, the land in dispute does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, perused the impugned order and find no reason to hold that it suffers from any error, as would require interference. In order to succeed, the petitioners were required to establish, as provided by Section 2(g)(5)(iii) of the Act, that the land was partitioned and was under the individual cultivating possession of their predecessors prior to 26.1.1950. The petitioners have neither asserted nor proved the essential requirements of this statutory provision. The mere fact that the jamabandi for the year 1950-51 records the petitioners or their predecessors in possession, does not satisfy the statutory requirement of separate cultivating possession prior to 1950. Dismissed. 20.1.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE