IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 1135 of 1989 Date of Decision : September 13, 2010. Kaka Singh and another ...... Petitioners Versus The Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab, Sector-17, Chandigarh (exercising the powers of Commissioner)and others ...... Respondents CWP No. 1136 of 1989 Muni Lal ...... Petitioner Versus The Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab, Sector-17, Chandigarh (exercising the powers of Commissioner) and others ...... Respondents CWP No. 1137 of 1989 Ajaib Singh and others ...... Petitioners Versus The Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab, Sector-17, Chandigarh (exercising the powers of Commissioner) and others ...... Respondents CWP No. 1138 of 1989 Raghbir Chand and others ...... Petitioners Versus The Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab, Sector-17, Chandigarh (exercising the powers of Commissioner) and others ...... Respondents CWP No. 3239 of 1988 Ram Singh ...... Petitioner Versus The Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab, Sector-17, Chandigarh (exercising the powers of Commissioner) and others ...... Respondents CWP No. 1135 of 1989 etc. -2- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- Mr. M.S. Bedi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Simsi Dhir Malhotra, AAG Punjab, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Kashmir Singh, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). By this Order, I propose to dispose of five writ petitions, i.e., CWP No. 1135 of 1989 Kaka Singh and another Versus The Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab, and others, CWP No. 1136 of 1989 Muni Lal Versus The Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab and others, CWP No. 1137 of 1989 Ajaib Singh and others Versus The Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab, and others, CWP No. 1138 of 1989 Raghbir Chand and others Versus The Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab, and others, and CWP No. 3239 of 1988 Ram Singh Versus The Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab, and others, as they arise out of common order dated 17.02.1987, passed by the Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab, (exercising the powers of the Commissioner) as common questions of law are involved in all of them. Counsel for the petitioners submits that applications were preferred by respondent No. 3/Gram Panchayat under Sections 4/5 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery Control) Act, 1973, and under Section 7(2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), praying for eviction of the petitioners from the land in question, are without any basis and the same are not tenable as the petitioners were in possession of the disputed land prior to 26.01.1950 as owners of the land. He contends that the land, although, shown in the revenue record as Shamlat Deh, yet as per the Jamabandi for the year 1945-46 (Annexure-P-1), the owners have been shown CWP No. 1135 of 1989 etc. -3- to be in cultivation of the Maqbuza Malkan and in the light of such an entry, the land would not fall in the definition of Shamlat Deh. His further contention is that the petitioners have been shown to be in possession of the land in question in the Jamabandi for the year 1981-82 (Annexure-P-3) and are in continuous possession since the year 1945-46 till date and the land being not Shamlat Deh, application preferred by the Gram Panchayat deserves to be dismissed. In any case, he contends that the land was shown to be Gair Mumkin Nadi, it was not included in the definition of Shamlat Deh and was specifically excluded as per proviso (ii) to Section 2(g) (2) of the Act, which was deleted only in the year 1976. He on this basis prays that the writ petitions be allowed and the impugned Order be set aside and the application preferred by the Gram Panchayat be dismissed. On the other hand, counsel for respondents contend that the Jamabandi for the year 1945-46, which has been produced on record, does not show the petitioners to be in possession of the land in question. Merely mentioning that the land is in cultivating possession of the Maqbuza Malkan does not establish that the petitioners are in possession as the names of the petitioners do not find mention therein. The entry which has been made with regard to possession of the land in the year 1981-82 in the Jamabandi, which has been relied upon by the petitioners, does not show the possession of the petitioners prior to 26.01.1950, which is the date to determine as to whether the land would be included in Shamlat Deh or not. His further contention is that no document has been brought on record, which would show the ownership of the petitioners over the land in question or the possession thereof prior to the amendment, which had led to the deletion of proviso (ii) to Section 2(g)(2) of the Act. He on this basis supports the impugned Order CWP No. 1135 of 1989 etc. -4- dated 17.02.1987 (Annexure-P-7), passed by the Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab, (exercising the powers of the Commissioner). I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. A perusal of the Jamabandi for the year 1945-46 (Annexure-P-1), which has been relied upon by counsel for the petitioners, shows that the land has been shown to be Shamlat Deh and the column of cultivation shows Maqbuza Malkan. It has not been mentioned that the petitioners are the Maqbuza Malkan, who are in possession of the land. The entry which has been relied upon by counsel for the petitioners, i.e., Jamabandi for the year 1981-82, is subsequent to the year 1976, when the Act was amended whereby the land falling in the river action has been excluded, but after the deletion, the same would be included in the definition of Shamlat Deh. Section 2 (g)(1) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, reads as follow :- “Section 2. Shamlat Deh (a) to( f) xxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx; (g)(1) lands prescribed in the revenue records as Shamlat Deh excluding abadi deh; xxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx.” Thus, the land admittedly falling outside the abadi deh, would thus fall within the definition of Shamlat Deh. The petitioners have failed to establish their possession over the land prior to 26.01.1950. In view of the above, Order dated 17.02.1987 (Annexure-P-7), passed by the Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab, (exercising the powers of the Commissioner) is in accordance with law, which does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. CWP No. 1135 of 1989 etc. -5- The finding recorded by the Revenue Court is in accordance with the evidence placed before it and as per the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. Dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE September 13, 2010. sjks.