CWP No.10390 of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.10390 of 1990 DATE OF DECISION: April 5, 2011 DERA UDASIAN KALAUR ...PETITIONER VERSUS ADDL. DIRECTOR, PANCHAYATS & OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes ---- PRESENT: MR. SARJIT SINGH, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR. VIKAS SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. MS. REETA KOHLI, ADDL.A.G., PUNJAB. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition challenges the order passed by Addl.Director, Panchayat confirming the order passed by the Collector in the proceedings initiated on an application filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Regulation Act, 1961. 2. The petitioner was making a claim to property in Khasra No.688/1 to an extent of 1 bigha 1 biswa as belonging to Dera Udasian and made reliance on an entry in the revenue register where it had been shown as the owner. The fact that the Dera was shown as owner was itself not in question, but while deciding the issue of title in the application under Section 11, the Collector did not go anymore beyond the fact that this property had been adjusted as kami-peshi and classified under Shamlat Deh in the proceedings initiated under East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and CWP No.10390 of 1990 -2- Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. This order was purported to have been issued on 30.7.1965. 3. The contention of learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner is that when the issue was an adjudication on title under Section 11, the fact that it had been shown or adjusted as Shamlat Deh by the proceedings on 30.7.1975, cannot conclude the issue since the said order was passed without notice and the order passed without notice to affect the party was per-se illegal and hence the owner can ignore the same in collateral proceedings and assert a title independently on such entries. The rejection of the application and the dismissal of the appeal are in my view untenable if we examine the situation that impugned orders themselves recognize the petitioner to have been the owner of the property, but the right to claim ownership on the basis of title was being sought to be defeated by the proceedings said to have been made under the Consolidation Act. So long as, it is not possible to affirm by the respondents that such order in consolidation was passed after due notice, the petitioner was entitled to ignore the same and the petition seeking for adjudication of title in his favour ought to have been considered favourably. 4. The impugned proceedings are quashed and it is hereby declared that the petitioner is the owner of the property in dispute. 5. The writ petition is allowed. April 5, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE