IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P NO. 21535 OF 2008 DECIDED ON : 08.01.2009 Baru Ram ...Petitioner versus UHBVNL and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. Surinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) In this Civil Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of memo dated 20.12.2007 (Annexure P-9) whereby electricity connection for the tube well installed by him in Khasra No. 143/22, in the revenue estate of village Bakhli, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra, has been denied by the respondent- authorities. It is the petitioner's own case that the electricity connection has been denied on a complaint made by the petitioner's neighbour to the effect that Khasra No. 143/22 is not owned by the petitioner or the proprietors of the village as the same being 'Jumla Mustarka Malkaan' is Sham Lat Deh and vests in the Gram Panchayat. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has handed over the copy of the Consolidation Scheme of the village. A perusal thereof reveals that Khasra C.W.P NO. 21535 OF 2008 -2- Nos. 143//11 to 15 and 16/2 and 17 to 24 are reserved for a specific common purpose, namely, for the income of the “Gram Panchayat”. It is also not in controversy that by virtue of amendment in the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961, brought into force by the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Haryana Amendment Act, 1992, the lands which were ear-marked for one or the other common purposes under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, were declared to have vested in the Gram Panchayat under Section 4 of the Village Common Lands Act. The vires of 1992 Amendment Act came to be challenged by the proprietors of villages and a Full Bench of this Court in “Jai Singh vs. State of Haryana” 2003 (2) PLR 658, held as follows : “62 (iv) all such lands, which have been, as per the consolidation scheme, reserved for common purposes, wehther utilised or not, shall vest with the State Government or the Gram Panchayat, as the case may be, even though in the column of ownership the entries may be Jumla Mustarka Malkans Wa Digar Haqdaran Hasab Rasad Arazi Khewat etc.” In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Full Bench, it is no longer debatable that the land which has been C.W.P NO. 21535 OF 2008 -3- earmarked for a common purpose under the consolidation scheme, whether utilized or un-utilized for the said purpose, vests in the Gram Panchayat. This is the precise case in relation to Khasra No. 143/22 where the petitioner wants to install a tube well and obtain the electricity connection. As the said piece of land stands vested in the Gram Panchayat, the petitioner's assertion to claim proprietorship over the subject land cannot be accepted. For the reasons mentioned above, no case for interference by this Court is made out. Dismissed. JANUARY 08, 2009 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE