CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3874 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 10, 2009 Bhisham Chand .....Petitioner VERSUS Director Rural Development, Punjab 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. S. D. Sharma, Sr.Advocate with Ms. Bindu Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The application filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) for declaring him to be the owner and for deciding the title of the land in his favour stands declined. The appeal filed against the same order was dismissed by the Collector on 31.10.2008. Earlier, an application under Section 7 of the Act filed by the Gram Panchayat was allowed by Collector on 29.10.2001, directing eviction of the petitioner from the part of land in dispute. Appeal against this order was also filed by the petitioner, which was dismissed on 17.9.2004. It is thereafter that the petitioner has filed an application under Section 11 of the Act for deciding the title of the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3874 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: land in dispute. The land bearing Khasra No.938/2 (1-10) is situated in village Alowal, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala. The land is described as Garmumkin residential house as per jamabandi for the year 2002- 03. Claiming that Sarpanch of the village had a grudge against the petitioner and, thus, wanted to demolish the house, a suit was filed before Civil Judge, Nabha, seeking an order restraining the petitioner not to raise any further construction. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was also filed. After obtaining a report from the Local Commissioner, the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 was dismissed on 13.11.1991. The Gram Panchayat filed an appeal against the said order, which was referred to Lok Adalat. As per the petitioner, the Gram Panchayat suffered a statement that it did not want to continue with the appeal and the same was, thus, permitted to be withdrawn. The suit was also not pursued and was got dismissed as withdrawn on 27.2.2001. The petitioner had narrated a history of Sarpanch having resorted to fight with him, leading to registration of a case. It is also pleaded that Karamjit Singh, Sarpanch, had also demolished the wall of the house of the petitioner, for which he filed a suit for damages. The said suit was decreed, granting damages of Rs.10,000/-. By referring to these facts, the petitioner claims that he is in possession of the land prior to 26.1.1950 and it is only in the year 1983 that the Gram Panchayat started making claim over the land. He has, thus, impugned the order, declining his prayer to declare him owner under Section 11 of the Act. Mr.S.D.Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3874 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: petitioner, would primarily contend that the Collector had failed to act in this case in an appropriate manner as per the provisions of law. By referring to Section 7 of the Act, the counsel contends that moment the petitioner has raised a question of title, the Collector was bound to direct him to file a petition under Section 11 of the Act for determining the title and to withhold the proceedings for his eviction. A perusal of the order passed by the Collector on 29.10.2001 would show that after perusing the documents on record and after inspection of the spot, the Collector found that house has been constructed on an area measuring 89'--9' x 40'x3” inches, which was found to be old. The Collector accordingly dispossessed the petitioner from the vacant land and further directed that the petitioner will pay the value of the land over which he had constructed the house. The Appellate Authority while relying upon the jamabandi for they ear 1997-98 found that Gram Panchayat was the owner of the disputed land. The possession of the petitioner was found to be illegal. In fact, the Appellate Authority found that the Collector has no right to direct the Gram Panchayat to sell this land. The submission of the petitioner that the Collector instead of deciding the matter as he did, should have required the parties to file an application under Section 11 of the Act would now be meaningless as the petitioner did file the application under Section 11 of the Act, which stands adjudicated. The contention that the Collector while deciding the application under Section 11 of the Act has not considered the documents, which were produced by the petitioner to show title may not be open to be gone into in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It is in the realm of appreciation of evidence. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3874 OF 2009 :{ 4 }: Otherwise, the Collector found the application filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Act to be without any merit. The Collector also found that the petitioner could not prove that the land is abadi deh land. The petitioner had also not challenged the order directing his eviction under Section 7 of the Act. Ofcourse, this was not the only factor to decide the application of the petitioner under Section 11 of the Act but was taken into consideration as an added factor. The appeal of the petitioner filed against this order has also been dismissed. The Appellate Authority noticed that in the year 1957-58, Gram Sabha was mentioned as the owner. Same was the position for the Jamabandi for the years 1997-98 and 2002-03. In fact, the petitioner had made a statement before the Collector, conceding that he constructed the residential house in the year 1982 and that the electricity connection was taken in the year 1982-83. The water connection was taken in the year 1990. Thus, it is noticed that the petitioner did not produce any evidence to show that he was in possession before 26.1.1950. It was accordingly found that the disputed land vested in the Gram Panchayat and it was the owner of the same. In addition, it was observed that the petitioner had not taken action to impugn the order, directing his dispossession. In this background of finding of fact as returned by the authorities, no case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. March 10,2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE