CWP No. 16375 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 16375 of 2010 (O & M) DATE OF DECISION: May 30, 2011 Jaswant Singh and others .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. G.S. Attariwala, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. Dharampal, Advocate, for respondent no. 3. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed in challenge to orders Annexures P-7 and P-8 dated 13.06.2008 and 26.02.2010 respectively passed by the prescribed/appellate authorities under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, as applicable to Punjab (for short 'The Act'). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the forefathers of the petitioners and later the petitioners have been the owners in possession of the land that was Banjar Qadim. The petitioners have been cultivating the land, as per the documents placed on record with this petition, and, therefore, they were required to be declared as owners in possession of the land under Section 11 of the Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners admits that the documents, on CWP No. 16375 of 2010 2 which reliance has been placed before the writ Court, were not produced before the Collector at the time of adjudication, although sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioners. 4. Considering the fact that the documents were not produced by the petitioners who were the persons who had filed the petition under Section 11 of the Act, the writ Court cannot take the documents into consideration at this stage. No ground for remand of the case, also, is made out as the clock cannot be turned back to the year 2006, in view of the conduct of the petitioners. 5. So far as the order Annexure P-7 is concerned, the order has been passed on the basis of revenue record for the years 1965-66 and 2000-01. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the jamabandi for the said years have been placed on record which indicate possession of the petitioners. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court towards document Annexure P-5 i.e. jamabandi for the year 1965-66. 7. I have considered the document Annexure P-5. 8. The khasra numbers given in Annexure P-5 do not relate to the claim of the petitioners in the suit filed by the petitioners under Section 11 of the Act. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has been given an opportunity to relate the khasra numbers in regard to which the petitioners claimed ownership that is mentioned in jamabandi Annexure P-5. All that has been said by learned counsel for the petitioners is that khasra numbers keep on changing. The consolidation scheme or other relevant documents have not been placed on record to indicate that the khasra numbers can be related/connected. CWP No. 16375 of 2010 3 10. In such circumstances, the case set up on behalf of the petitioners on the basis of Annexure P-5 is not substantiated. 11. The stand taken by the respondent-Gram Panchayat is that the petitioners took land on lease when father of the petitioners was elected Panch of the Gram Panchayat. After expiry of lease on 05.06.2002, the civil suit for permanent injunction was filed in civil court at Anandpur Sahib. Application for interim relief was dismissed. An appeal filed against the interim order was also dismissed. 12. It has been pleaded on behalf of the respondents that number of cases have been filed in context of the claims. The petitioners, however, have failed in their endeavour. A long list of old cases/proceedings have been mentioned in the written statement so as to show mala fide conduct of the petitioners. During arguments, it has been pleaded by learned counsel for respondent no. 3-Gram Panchayat that the petition be dismissed with exemplary costs in view of non-disclosure of relevant material and facts to the Writ Court. 13. The stand taken by the respondents is not being considered in view of the fact that the petitioners have not been able to show to this Court from the impugned orders that the orders are in any way perverse or have been passed de hors the relevant record and material or without jurisdiction. 14. No ground for judicial review of the impugned orders in writ jurisdiction is made out. 15. Petition dismissed. 30.05.2011 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?