LPA No. 731 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 731 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 11, 2011 Baru …Appellant Versus The Joint Director, Panchayat, Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. G.P.S. Bal, Advocate for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 12.01.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that order dated 21.12.1981 (P-5) passed by the Collector, Ludhiana and appellate order dated 15.11.1985 (P-6) passed by the Commissioner, Ludhiana, dismissing the application of the petitioner under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for brevity 'the Act'), did not suffer from any legal infirmity. 2. The learned Single Judge has considered the arguments of both the sides and then recorded a conclusion that the appellant LPA No. 731 of 2011 (O&M) -2- could not have claimed ownership of the land in question under Section 11 of the Act. The argument of the appellant was that certain documents pertaining to consolidation or gift in respect of the land would show that the land was in possession of the Muslim and it was gifted to the appellant. Rejecting the aforesaid submission, learned Single Judge held that in the gift deed it has been recited that 4 Bighas of 'Shamlat Deh' land has been gifted to the father of the appellant as gift. According to the learned Single Judge, no such land could be gifted because the land was part of Shamlat Deh. The learned Single Judge further held that the land in dispute has not been linked with the gift deed. It has also been found that the document talks of Kanals, which was not the unit of measurement in the year 1921, when Bighas were used to be the expression employed as unit of measurement. Therefore, it was found to be of doubtful veracity. The learned Single Judge still further found that document (P-3) is an alleged extract of the Consolidation Scheme as it reserved the land measuring 5 bighas 12 biswas and 9 biswanis. However, the land shown in the scheme could not be connected with the land in dispute in the present case. Moreover the appellant was claiming title over the land measuring 31 kanals 6 marlas, which is far more area than relected in the documents concerning Consolidation Scheme. It has also been found that the land was owned by Panchayat as per revenue record. The view of the learned Single Judge is further discernible from the penultimate para of the judgment which reads as under: LPA No. 731 of 2011 (O&M) -3- “The petitioner could succeed only if he or his predecessor in interest were in possession to the extent of their share on or before 21.1.1950. In the absence of any evidence or the fact that the petitioner or his predecessor including his father and Mohammadans were in possession on 26.1.1950, the claim of the petitioner has been rightly dismissed. Still further, from the Jamabandies for the year 1959- 1960, the land in dispute measuring 31 kanals 6 marlas except 2 kanals 1 marla is either Banjar Qadim or Barani. In respect of 2 kanals 1 marla, the entry is gair mumkin abadi, Bazigar. The petitioner cannot be said to be in cultivating possession of the Banjar Qadim land recorded as owned by the Gram Panchayat. Entries in the said Jamabandi do not prove the possession of the petitioner on or before 26.1.1950. The petitioner cannot claim a declaration of his title over the suit property. It is rightly declined by the Courts below.” 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at a considerable length. 4. Mr. G.P.S. Bal, learned counsel for the appellant had earlier sought two adjournments to place on record any additional document but no such document has been produced. In the absence of any document, it is not possible for us to interfere in the LPA No. 731 of 2011 (O&M) -4- concurrent findings recorded by two departmental authorities, namely, Collector and the Commissioner in their orders dated 21.12.1981 and 15.11.1985 (P-5 & 6), particularly when it has been upheld by the learned Single Judge. There is no material on record to reach a conclusion different than the one recorded by the departmental authorities and the learned Single Judge. Therefore, it is not possible for us to hold that the appellant can be regarded as owner of the land under Section 11 of the Act. There is, thus, no merit in the appeal. 5. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 6. Keeping in view the dismissal of appeal on merit, we do not wish to pass any order on the application seeking condonation of delay of 29 days in filing of the instant appeal. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE August 11, 2011 Atul