IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition 15017 of 2006 Date of decision: 1.9.2009 Jasmel Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and ors …Respondents Present: Mr BBS Sobti, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr HS Gill, DAG Punjab for respondents-1, 3, 4 and 5. Mr RS Chauhan, Advocate for the respondent – 2. S.S. SARON, J. The petitioner is in possession of land measuring 2 Kanals 6 Marlas comprised in Rectangle No.23 Khasra No.18/1 in village Birmi, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. The Gram Panchayat, Birmi (respondent-2) being owner of the said land, filed a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act 1964 (Act – for short) seeking ejectment of the petitioner. The petition filed by the Gram Panchayat was allowed by the Collector vide order dated 19.1.2001 (R2/2). The petitioner, however, did not assail the said order and he filed a petition under Section 11 of the Act before the Collector (respondent-5). The Collector vide order dated 27.4.2004 (P2) held that the Gram Panchayat village Birmi never came in possession of the land at any point of time nor it ever used the same for common purposes of the village. As such, the petition under Section 11 of the Act filed by the petitioner was accepted and the petitioner was declared owner in possession of the land. The Gram Panchayat of 1 CWP 15017 of 2006 village Birmi (respondent-2) filed an appeal before the Commissioner (respondent-3), who vide order dated 28.4.2006 (P1) accepted the appeal and the order dated 27.4.2004 (P2) passed by the Collector was set aside. The Commissioner observed that the petitioner had taken time to show the revenue records in order to prove his old possession since 1947. However, he could not show the records. It was observed that according to Jamabandi for the year 1994-95, the Gram Panchayat, Birmi was owner of the land and the petitioner was shown in the column of cultivation as ‘Gair Marusi’. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed vide order dated 28.4.2006 (P1). The petitioner, aggrieved against the said order, has filed the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order dated 28.4.2006 (P1) passed by the Commissioner under the Act and for restoring the order dated 27.4.2004 (P2) passed by the Collector. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is in possession of the land measuring 2 Kanals 6 Marlas comprised in Rectangle No.23 Khasra No.18/1. He has been in possession of the said land since 1986. Earlier, one Arjan Singh was in possession of the said land since 1947 and the petitioner has purchased the possessary rights of Arjan Singh. Therefore, by being in continuous and open possession, the petitioner has become owner in possession of the said land. It is submitted that the Commissioner has not passed a reasoned order and the petitioner produced relevant evidence on record to show that he is in possession of the land. In support of his contention, the learned counsel cites Gram Panchayat, Bari, District Sonepat v. Collector, Sonepat and anr 1991 Supp (2) SCC 407. In response, learned counsel for the Gram Panchayat has submitted that the order of ejectment dated 19.1.2001 (R2/2) has already 2 CWP 15017 of 2006 been passed in favour of the Gram Panchayat and the passing of the said order has not been disclosed by the petitioner. Besides, the said order has not been assailed by the petitioner. It is also submitted that nothing has been brought on record by the petitioner to show that Arjan Dass from whom the petition claims had purchased his possessory rights was in possession of the land since 1947. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record. It is not in dispute that in the revenue records the Gram Panchayat, Birmi (respondent-2) is recorded as owner of the land and the petitioner is recorded in the cultivation column as ‘Gair Marusi’. The petitioner is in occupation of land comprised in Rectangle No.23, Khasra No.18/1 measuring 2 Kanals 6 Marlas. The same has been mentioned as ‘Gair Mumkin Poultry Farm’. This position is depicted in the Jamabandis for the years 1989-90, 1999-2000 and 2004-05 (P3 colly). However, in the Jamabandi for the year 1984-85 (R2/1), Panchayat Deh is recorded as the owner of the land and in the column of cultivation, it is recorded as self- cultivation and Maqbuza Malkan. The case of the petitioner is that he purchased the possessory rights in the land in 1986 from one Arjan Dass. However, in the Jamabandi for the year 1984-85 (R2/1), the name of Arjan Dass being in cultivating possession is not recorded. Therefore, the stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in possession of the land since 1947 through Arjan Dass stands falsified and there is nothing on record to show that Arjan Dass was in possession of the land since 1947. In fact, in the Jamabandi for the year 1984-85 (R2/1), said Arjan Dass is not in possession of the land. 3 CWP 15017 of 2006 The case of Gram Panchayat, Bari (supra) referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner is inapplicable to the facts of the present case. In the said case, the High Court had dismissed the writ petition by a one-word order without recording reasons and the matter was remitted by the Supreme Court. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 1.9.2009. ( S.S.SARON ) ASR JUDGE 4