IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.3153 of 2008 Date of decision : 19.12.2011 Surinder Singh and others … Petitioners Versus Joint Development Commissioner/IRD and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present : Mr.P.K.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Manohar Lall, Addl.AG, Punjab for respondent No.1 and 2 Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.IDS Mangat, Advocate for respondent No.3. Paramjeet Singh, J. The present Civil Writ Petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing order dated 21.11.2007 (Annexure P-16) passed by the Commissioner and order dated 2.3.2004 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Collector whereby the application of the petitioners under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to be as the ‘Act’), has been dismissed and the Gram Panchayat has been declared to be the owner of the land in question. Brief facts of the case are that as per Jamabandi for the year 1959- 60 (Annexure P-2), the land in question was described as Mustarka Malkan etc. Majukaran and the possession has been shown as Nagar Panchayat. The CWP No.3153 of 2008 land has been carved out, out of the land of proprietors of the village by imposing cut on the land of Nand Singh father of the petitioners being proprietor. Gram Panchayat has no concern with the land in question. The possession of the petitioners over the land is continuous as owner for many years and the Bachat Land which has been remained un-utilized, will vests in the propriety body as land is described as Jumla Malkan & Dikar Haqdaran Hasab Rasad Rakba Khewat. The mutation entered in the name of Gram Panchayat has no effect on the right of the petitioners. Earlier the land was partitioned under the order of Director (Consolidation). Ultimately Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.7674 of 1996, decided on 3.12.1998, issued a direction that title of the land be got decided from the competent authority. Thereafter, the petitioners had filed the petition under Section 11 of the Act, which has been allowed by the Director and the appeal of the petitioners has been dismissed by the Commissioner. Hence, this Civil Writ Petition. The stand taken by the Gram Panchayat is that the Gram Panchayat has been auctioning the land in question on lease and this process is continuing since 1969-70. Various persons such as Bachan Ram and Balwinder Singh, as is evident from the Jamabandi for the year 2001-02, have been shown as lessees of the land in question. The mutation entered more than 38 years earlier, is valid and cannot be challenged by the petitioners in such proceedings. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the land in question does not fall in the definition of ‘Shamlat deh’. The land has been described in the revenue record as Hasab Rasad Rakba Khewat. It is the case 2 CWP No.3153 of 2008 of the petitioners that the land in question is in their possession since their ancestors being proprietors and permanent residents of the village. Their possession is continuous prior to 26.1.1950. Therefore, in view of Section 2(g) (5)(viii) of the Act, the land in question does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. We are not in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Both the revenue authorities after considering the revenue record, have recorded a finding that the petitioners have failed to prove their exclusive possession over the land in dispute on or before 26.1.1950. The land in the revenue record has been described as Jumla Malkan & Dikar Haqdaran Hasab Rasad Rakba Khewat and in the cultivation column, it has been shown as Makbuja Nagar Panchayat Rafaae Aam & Share Aam. The petitioners had never paid any Patta or Chaukota. The Panchayat had been auctioning the land in question from 1969-70 to 2002-03. In the latest jamabandi, the Gram Panchayat has been shown as the owner. Such land falls in the definition of Shamlat as defined under Section 2(g) of the Act. There is no iota of evidence on record to indicate that what was the share of the petitioners in the proprietary body nor they have proved their possession over the land prior to 26.1.1950. As per Section 23A and Rule 16 (ii) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, such land vests for management and control in the Gram Panchayat. The entire land being given on lease to various persons for year to year basis and the income derived from it, is being used for common purposes of the village. After about 50 years of the Act, the petitioners cannot claim any right over the land in question. 3 CWP No.3153 of 2008 Besides this, it would be appropriate to mention here that in view of the latest amendment under Section 42-A of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, it has been made clear that even the Bachat land cannot be partition amongst the original cultivators. In view of the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the revenue authorities, the Gram Panchayat has been rightly held to be the owner of the land in dispute. We are not inclined to interfere in the orders passed by both the authorities below. No merit. Dismissed in limine. [ PARAMJEET SINGH ] JUDGE [ SATISH KUMAR MITTAL] JUDGE 19.12.2011 sd 4