Civil Writ Petition No. 13155 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) Civil Writ Petition No. 13155 of 2010 Date of Order: 28.07.2010 Bahadur Singh ....Petitioner Versus Commissioner Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar under PP Act and others ..Respondents (2) Civil Writ Petition No.8819 of 2010 Tirath Singh and another ....Petitioners Versus Commissioner Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar under PP Act and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr.C.L.Sharma ,Advocate for the petitioner. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). This order shall dispose of C.W.P.Nos. 8819 and 13155 of 2010 as they involve adjudication of identical points. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from CWP No.13155 of 2010. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 28.07.2009 and 21.01.2010, directing the petitioner's ejectment from land admittedly recorded in the revenue record as "Jumla Malkan wa Digar Haqdaran Arazi Hasab Rasad Raqba." Civil Writ Petition No. 13155 of 2010 -2- Counsel for the petitioner submits that land in dispute is Bachat Land, as it was left over for distribution amongst proprietors, at the time of consolidation. The land in dispute was neither reserved nor used by the Gram Panchayat for common purposes of the village. The Gram Panchayat, therefore, cannot exercise any proprietary or possessory rights over the land in dispute or pray for the petitioner's ejectment I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders. Admittedly, the land is “Jumla Malkan wa Digar Haqdaran Arazi Hasab Rasad Raqba” (hereinafter referred to as Jumla Mushtarka Malkan). The expression “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan” is defined by Rule 16(ii) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1949 as land that is reserved for the Gram Panchayat and the other common purposes of the village. Rule 16(ii) reads as follows:- 2[(ii) In an estate or estates where during Consolidation proceedings there is no Shamlat deh land or such land is considered inadequate, land shall be reserved for the village Panchayat and for other common purposes, under section 18 (c) of the Act, out of the common pool of the village 3[at the scale given in the schedule to these rules]. Proprietary rights in respect of land so reserved (except the area reserved for the extension of abadi of proprietors and non-proprietors) shall Civil Writ Petition No. 13155 of 2010 -3- vest in the proprietary body of estate or estates concerned and it shall be entered in the column of ownership of records rights as (Jumla Malkan wa Digar Haqdaran Arazi Hasab Rasad Raqba). The management of such land shall be done by the Panchayat of the estate or estates concerned on behalf of the village proprietary body and the Panchayat shall have the right to utilize the income derived from the land so reserved for the common needs and benefit of the estate or estates concerned. A perusal of Rule 16(ii) leaves no ambiguity as to its intent that land reserved “for the village panchayat and for other common purposes”, is “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan”. Rule 16(ii) further postulates that ownership of such land shall vest in the proprietors, but its management and control shall vest in the Gram Panchayat. An appraisal of the plain and simple language used in Rule 16(ii) puts paid to the argument that “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan” is Bachat Land or that “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan” not put to use for common purposes is “Bachat Land”. "Bachat Land", on the other hand, is land that is left over, after the creation of “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan”. The expressions “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan” and “ Bachat Land”, are neither synonymous nor interchangeable. Even otherwise, the petitioner has failed to place on record, the scheme of consolidation or any other material that would even remotely suggest that this land was left Civil Writ Petition No. 13155 of 2010 -4- over after consolidation as “Bachat Land” or was not reserved for common purposes. Before parting with the order it would be necessary to deal with another plea raised by counsel for the petitioner, namely, the vires of Section 42(A) introduced in the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentations) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Challenge to the validity of Section 42 (A) is pending before a Division Bench. It appears that this plea has been raised so as to seek admission of the writ petition as from the pleaded facts no such plea arises for adjudication. Dismissed. July 28, 2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE