CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8961 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JULY 11 ,2011 Miha Singh and others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. R. K. Rana, Advocate for Mr. N. S. Dhillon, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 10.2.2010, Annexure P-1, passed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana, as well as the orders dated 2.5.2007 and 12.12.2005 passed by Commissioner, Ambala Division and Collector, Kaithal, respectively. On 21.7.2000, the petitioners filed a suit under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), as applicable to the State of Haryana against respondent-Gram Panchayat claiming title of the disputed land measuring 16 kanals 2 marlas comprised in Khewat No.538 min, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8961 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: Khatauni No.815, Rectangle No.105, Killa No.11 ( 8 kanals), Rectangle No.106, Killa No.15 (8 kanals) and Rectangle No.626, Killa No.24 (0-2), as per jamabandi for the year 1995-06. The petitioners claim that this land situated in village Balbehra, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal is in their possession prior to 26.1.1950. Reference is made to an ejectment application filed by respondent-Gram Panchayat under Section 7(2) of the Act on the ground that the petitioners were in an unauthorized possession of the land since 1995-96 and were not paying any lease/rent to the Panchayat. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade dismissed this application on 31.1.2002 by observing that the petitioners are in possession of the disputed land prior to 26.1.1950. It is observed that the share of the petitioners in the shamlat deh is worked out to be 25 kanals 13 marlas, whereas they are in possession of land measuring 16 kanals, which is less than their share. Suit filed by the petitioners under Section 13-A of the Act was dismissed by the Collector on 12.12.2005 by holding the Gram Panchayat to be the title holder. The petitioners appealed against the same before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, but their appeal was dismissed on 2.5.2007. Against this, the petitioners approached Financial Commissioner, who, through the impugned order dated 10.2.2010, has dismissed the revision petition. The petitioners have accordingly challenged these orders through the present writ petition. The Financial Commissioner has noticed that the land in question was recorded as shamlat deh and, thus, it would fall within the ambit of shamlat deh as defined under Section 2(g) of the Act. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8961 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: Reference is made to the jamabandi for the year 1944-45 and 1953- 54 to observe that only land measuring 14 biswas bearing Khasra No.2120 was shown to be in possession of Sh.Jaati and Sh.Nanu and that the land bearing Khasra No.2124 (4 bighas) was not proved to be in possession of predecessors of the petitioners. It is also noticed that land in question has been given in lieu of land bearing 31 khasra No.2120 and 2124. Since land bearing Khasra No.2124 was never in possession of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners, the claim of the petitioners over the land, which was allotted in lieu of Khasra No.2124, was not found sustainable. It is observed that the petitioners have totally failed to prove that the land ever remained in their cultivating possession since 26.1.1950 and, thus, this land did not fall under any of the exception clauses of Section 2(g)(5) of the Act. The petitioners also could not prove the extent of their share in the shamlat deh and all the authorities have appreciated the revenue record produced before them and had passed the detailed and well reasoned order. The conceded position is that the land was recorded as shamlat deh in the revenue record prior to the commencement of shamlat law. This land has rightly vested in the Gram Panchayat as per the provision of shamlat law. The land was mutated in favour of Gram Panchayat prior to the commencement of the Act. These arguments could not be rebutted before the authorities concerned. The finding is that the petitioners could not show their possession over the land bearing Khasra No.2124 (4 bighas) prior to 26.1.1950 and, thus, this land did not fall in the exception clauses of Section 2 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8961 OF 2011 :{ 4 }: (g)(5) of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made laborious attempt to read before me the evidence which was produced before the authorities but was not placed on record. If the intention was to rely on any evidence of the Patwari, the same should have been produced on record for perusal. The concurrent finding of fact as recorded by various authorities would desist me to interfere in the exercise of writ jurisdiction by appreciating or re-appreciating any evidence, which is even not available on record. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. July 11, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE