IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 13995 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 08.08.2008 Daya Kishan and others .... PETITIONERS Versus The State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present: Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate, for the petitioners. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The petitioners have filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents No.1 to 3 to cancel the mutation No. 594 dated 15.6.1992 of the land in question measuring 419 Kanals 17 Marlas, in favour of the `Jumla Mustarka Malkan', which has been wrongly entered in the name of the Gram Panchayat, Village Nandgarh. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the proprietors of Village Nandgarh and are co-sharers in the aforesaid land, which is `Jumla Mustarka Malkan' land. The said land was taken out from the share of the proprietors and was reserved for the use of the proprietors and was not kept CWP No. 13995 of 2008 -2- for common purpose of the village. Therefore, the petitioners are the owners of the said land and as per the definition given in the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), the same is not a `Shamlat Deh'. In spite of that, mutation of the aforesaid land has been illegally and wrongly sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat vide mutation No. 594 dated 15.6.1992, which is liable to be cancelled. After hearing counsel for the petitioners, we are of the opinion that the question whether the land in dispute is `Shamlat Deh' or vests in the Gram Panchayat is to be determined by the Collector in a title suit filed under Section 13-A of the Act. The petitioners have alternative remedy to file the title suit under Section 13-A of the Act to claim that the land in dispute does not fall under the definition of `Shamlat Deh' and does not vest in the Gram Panchayat, and the aforesaid mutation sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat is liable to be set aside and the petitioners are liable to be declared as owners of of this land. In view of this alternative remedy, available to the petitioners, we do not find any ground to entertain this petition. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE August 08, 2008 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) ndj JUDGE