IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 415 of 2011 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION : 08.03.2011 Gram Panchayat Basaudi, Tehsil and District Sonepat .... APPELLANT Versus Rup Ram and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL Present: Mr. U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate, for the appellant. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. Gram Panchayat, Village Basaudi, Tehsil and District Sonepat, has filed this Letters Patent Appeal against the order dated 23.12.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (Civil Writ Petition No. 2355 of 1988) filed by respondents No.1 to 10 (the private respondents) has been allowed and the notices (Annexures P-3 and P-4), issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, for cancellation of the allotment in favour of the predecessor of the private respondents, have been set aside. Though this appeal is barred by time and the appellants have filed an application (CM No. 1117 of 2011), duly supported by an affidavit, for condoning the delay of 39 days in filing the appeal, but we have heard LPA No. 415 of 2011 ( O&M ) -2- learned counsel for the appellants on merits. Undisputedly, in the present case, one Nand Kishore son of Beli Ram, who was a displaced person, died after partition of the country. In lieu of the land left by him in Pakistan, on 5.4.1982, his widow Smt. Shilawati alias Sushila Devi was allotted agricultural land measuring 81 kanals 12 marlas, situated in village Basaudi, Tehsil and District Sonepat, against his verified claim. On the basis of the allotment order, mutation of the disputed land was sanctioned in her favour and she took possession of the said land on 14.6.1982. Thereafter, vide four separate sale deeds dated 10.8.1982, 11.8.1982, 13.8.1982 and 1.9.1982, she sold the entire land to the private respondents, who took possession of the purchased land. Subsequently, in the year 1985, after the passing of the judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gram Panchayat of village Jamalpur v. Malwinder Singh and others, AIR 1985 SC 1394, the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, issued notices Annexures P-3 and P-4 for cancellation of the allotment in favour of the predecessor of the private respondents. Thus, the private respondents challenged those notices in the aforesaid writ petition, wherein the impugned order has been passed. Keeping in view the fact that in the instant case, the allotment was made much prior to 9.7.1985, the date on which the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered judgment in Gram Panchayat of village Jamalpur's case (supra), the learned Single Judge held that in view of the amendment of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), vide Punjab Act No. 8 of 1995, the allotments made prior to LPA No. 415 of 2011 -3- the aforesaid date are not to be cancelled or set aside. It has been held by the Hon'ble Single Judge that by virtue of the amendment of Section 2 (g) of the Act by introduction of sub-clause (ii-a), all allotments of Shamilat Deh land to displaced persons or transfer of such land to any person by way of sale or by any other manner after the commencement of the Act, but on or before 9.7.1985, have been saved by taking out all such lands from the Shamilat Deh of a village. It has been further held that if such lands do not constitue a part of the Shamilat Deh of a village, the jurisdiction of the Gram Panchayat of the village in respect of such lands will not exist. The Gram Panchayat will, therefore, have no claim to such lands. Therefore, the allotments of such lands made prior to 9.7.1985 have been protected and the same cannot be set aside. The validity of the aforesaid amendment has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Gram Panchayat of village Kum Kalan v. State of Punjab and others, decided on 7.4.2010. Learned counsel for the appellant could not controvert the aforesaid factual and legal position. However, while referring to an order dated 22.11.1985, passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, which is available on the file of the writ petition as Annexure R-4/2, argued that in view of the said order, the allotment made in favour of the predecessor of the private respondents was not final. We have perused the aforesaid order, passed by the Commissioner. It does not pertain to the cancellation of the allotment made by the Rehabilitation Department in favour of the predecessor of the private respondents. It arose against an order of partition made by the Assistant LPA No. 415 of 2011 -4- Collector IInd Grade under the Act. When the custodian of the evacuee property submitted an application for partition of the land, the Gram Panchayat objected allotment of certain land in favour of the Custodian Department. The Gram Panchayat claimed that some khasra numbers, which are used as Charand, should be given to it and not to the Custodian Department. By the said order, the order of partition, passed by the Assistant Collector was set aside. The learned Single Judge had taken into consideration the said order and then came to the conclusion that the Commissioner has set aside the partition order, primarily on the basis of the judgment of the Apex Court in Gram Panchayat of village Jamalpur's case (supra) and that will have no bearing, because in view of the subsequent amendment made in the Act, the validity of which has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Gram Panchayat of village Kum Kalan's case (supra), all the allotments made upto 9.7.1985 have been saved. Thus, we do not find any illegality in the order, passed by the learned Single Judge, setting aside the notices issued to the predecessor of the private respondents, who undisputedly was allotted land prior to 9.7.1985. No merit. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE March 08, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) ndj JUDGE