IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.987 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 31.05.2011 Gram Panchayat, Nalini …..Appellant versus Joint Director Panchayat, Punjab and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.Hardip Singh, Advocate for the appellant Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) C.M. Nos.2782-283 of 2011 In view of reasons mentioned in these applications, which are accompanied by affidavits, the same are allowed, 83 days delay in re-filing and 124 days delay in filing the appeal stands condoned. LPA No.987 of 2011 Gram Panchayat has filed this appeal against a judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on 22.7.2011, dismissing CWP No.446 of 1987, filed by it. In the above said writ petition, the appellant had laid challenge to an order dated 2.7.1982, passed by the Divisional Deputy Director Rural Development and Panchayat, Patiala/ Collector under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961(in short, the Act), declaring the private respondents as owner of the land in dispute. It is apparent from the record that the Gram Panchayat filed an application under Section 7 of the Act for ejectment of the private LPA No.987 of 2011(O&M) respondents from the land in dispute. At the same time, the private respondents also filed an application under Section 11 of the Act with a prayer that they be declared as owners of that land. After a hot contest, the Collector, by taking note of the evidence on record, in the shape of Jamabandis, khasra girdwaris and also the consolidation record, declared the private respondents as owner of the land total measuring 41 kanal 4 marla. Their claim with regard to 4 marla of land falling in khasra No.31//7 min was rejected on a ground that they were not found in possession of that khasra number 12 years before the passing of the Act. The Gram Panchayat went in appeal, which was dismissed by the Joint Director Panchayats, Punjab (exercising the powers of Commissioner under the Act), by observing as under:- “I have carefully gone through the written arguments and have perused the record. In order to prove their ownership of the land in dispute, the respondents have produced Jamabandies for 2004-2005 B.K., 2009-2009 B.K, 1955-56, 1959-60, 1960-61, 1963-64, 1974-75 and 1979-80. In order to prove that prior to consolidation they were in possession of the same land which is in their possession at present, they have porudced Khatauni Consolidation, Naksha Haqdarwar, Minute Book of Consolidation. 6. In Jamabandi 2004/2005 and 2008/2009 B.K the land is described as Shamlat and Basant Singh the forefather of the present respondents is shown in cultivation of 41 Kanals. To similar effect is the entry in Khasra Girdawari for the year 1947-48. The same Khasra Numbers are reflected in Consolidation in 1955-56 and present respondents are shown in possession thereof. Record shows that, after this Jamabandi, consolidation of holdings took place. During consolidation Khasra numbers were changed. To prove that the present land is in lieu of what they had before consolidation, they have produced Khatauni Consolidation, 2 LPA No.987 of 2011(O&M) Naqsha Haqdarwar and Minute Book. In Khatauni Consolidation, Khasra Numbers shown are the same which are shown in Jamabandi 1955-56 which shows 33B-9B (10-2 Chahi and 23-7 Barani). In Naqsha Haqdarwar this 33B 9 B has been thrown in the pool. Minute Book of Panchayat Nalini shows that the respondents have been given possession 41 K 4 M of the land in lieu of what was in their possession prior to consolidation. This entry is there in Jamabandies 1959-60 to 1974-75 and the present Khasra Numbers have been reflected therein. In the year 1979-80, an additional entry regarding Khasra No.31//7 Min (4-0) has been made. These documents pertaining to consolidation clarify that respondents have been given 41 K 4 M of land in place of what was in their possession prior to consolidation. But in 1979-80 they have taken additional (4K-0M) comprised in Khasra No.31//7 which they have no right to retain. 7. Revenue record shows that whatever land was reflected as Shamlat during period prior to consolidation the same has been reflected in the name of Nagar Panchayat after Consolidation. There is no doubt about the ownership of this land. Gram Panchayat is the owner of this land. Possession of the land in dispute with present respondents commences with effect from Jamabandi 147-48. They are protected under Section 4(3)(ii). They cannot be evicted from this land. 8. Keeping the aforesaid reasoning in view I have arrived at a conclusion the present respondents have been in possession of the land since more than 12 years before the commencement of the Act. Thus they cannot be evicted from this land. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 9. To the same effect are another two under mentioned appeals in which the possession of respondents dates back to more than 12 years before the commencement of Act. These appeals are also dismissed.” Thereafter, the Gram Panchayat came in writ petition, which was dismissed vide the impugned order. The learned Single Judge has 3 LPA No.987 of 2011(O&M) noted that as per documentary evidence on record, the order passed by the Courts below is perfectly justified. It has been noted that to prove their claim over the land in dispute, the private respondents have produced jamabandis for the years 2004-2005 B.K., 2008-2009 B.K., 1955-56, 1959- 60, 1960-61, 1963-64, 1974-75 and 1979-80 and also consolidation record including Naksha Haqdarwar showing their entitlement to get the land allotted in lieu of the land in their possession before consolidation proceedings started in the village. After hearing counsel for the appellant and going through the record, we feel that the order passed is perfectly justified. The claim of the respondents is supported by documentary evidence on record. To the contrary, no document has been brought on record to show that they were not in possession of the property in dispute at the relevant time. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 31.05.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 4