Civil Writ Petition No.5538 of 2006 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: March 17, 2009 Raghbir Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS The Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Palwinder Singh, Sr.DAG, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.Ramesh Hooda, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr.K.S.Malik and Mr.Harkesh Manuja Advocates, for respondent No.5. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of three Civil Writ Petition Civil Writ Petition No.5538 of 2006 : 2 : Nos.5538 of 2006 (Raghbir Singh Vs. The Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and others), 13712 of 2006 (Dharam Singh Vs. The Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and others) and 13781 of 2006 (Chet Ram Vs. The Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and others). The facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No.5538 of 2006. The petitioner claims himself to be a Biswedar at village Nara, Tehsil and District Panipat. He claims to be in cultivating possession of land measuring 68 kanals 16 marlas situated in the village since the year 1943-44. It is further claimed that during consolidation, the land in question has been allotted to the petitioner in lieu of old khasra numbers. The petitioner has disclosed that the land is described as `Shamlat deh Hasab Rasad Rakba' in the revenue record and on the basis of a letter dated 28.6.1954, the mutation was entered in the name of Gram Panchayat on 1.6.1955. The proprietors thereafter filed a civil suit on 5.10.1963, which was decreed on 20.11.1965 holding that suit land was partitioned amongst the proprietors of the village and since then forefathers of the plaintiffs and thereafter the plaintiffs are cultivating the suit land. It is on this basis claimed that the petitioner has succeeded in showing that he is cultivating the land since the time of his forefathers. Despite this, the Gram Panchayat threatened the petitioner to take possession on one pretext or the other. On 2.6.1992 Assistant Collector IInd Grade passed an order under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”). The petitioner filed a Civil Writ petition No.8707 of 1992, which was decided on 13.3.2003. Thereafter, one Civil Writ Petition No.5538 of 2006 : 3 : Randhir Singh filed a petition under Section 7 of the Act against the petitioner. The petitioner then filed an application raising question of title. Counsel for the petitioner says that on the basis of the judgment passed by the civil court showing his possession, the petitioner has placed prima-facie material to raise a question of title to this property, which has come to him being a Khewatdar. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he had raised a question of title but the Collector while allowing the application under Section 7 of the Act did not decide the question of title. It is not much in dispute that the civil court has given a judgment, referred to above. On the basis of the finding returned by the civil court, it can be said that prima-facie material is available to indicate the question of title. The Assistant Collector accordingly should have taken action to proceed in a manner to decide the question of title as laid down in Section 7 of the Act. During the course of arguments, counsel for the Gram Panchayat would point out that the petitioner has separately been allotted this land in consolidation on the basis of his share, but has in addition encroached upon the land which is of the Gram Panchayat. Since the question of title prima-facie would arise for consideration, the case is remanded back to Assistant Collector Ist Grade to consider and decide the same by giving proper opportunity to the respective parties. The respondents will be entitled to raise all the defences that are available to them. The Assistant Collector would take a decision in accordance with law. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. The orders Civil Writ Petition No.5538 of 2006 : 4 : passed by the Collector and Commissioner would not be given effect, wherein it is observed that no question of title is involved. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade on 7.4.2009. Since the matter is pending since long, it will be appropriate for the Assistant Collector Ist Grade to decide the petition within a period of four months. March 17, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE