Civil Writ Petition No. 9806 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 9806 of 2008 Date of Order: 13.07.2010 Surender Kumar ....Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. R.N.Lohan,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gagandeep Singh Wasu,Sr.DAG, Haryana for respondents no.1 to 4 Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for respondent No.5 RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 25.04.2008, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jind, ordering the Naib Tehsildar, to enter a mutation of ownership in the name of the Gram Panchayat in accordance with Section 2(g)(6) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as applicable to the State of Haryana and the Full Bench judgment of this Court reported as Jai Singh and others v. State of Haryana, PLR 2003(2), 658 Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Deputy Commissioner, Jind, has no authority, to pass such an order directing the revenue officers to enter a mutation, in favour of the Gram Panchayat. It is submitted that as the land is described, as Jumla Mushtarka Malkan and Digar Hissedaran Hasad Rasad Rakba Khewat, in the revenue record, it Civil Writ Petition No. 9806 of 2008 -2- does not vest in the Gram Panchayat and even otherwise can not be reflected as the ownership of the Gram Panchayat. Be that as it may, as pursuant to this order, a mutation of ownership has already been altered and sanctioned in the name of Gram Panchayat, the remedy of the petitioner, if any is either to challenge the order of mutation before the appellate forum provided under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 or to file an appropriate petition under Section 13A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as applicable to the State of Haryana, challenging the correctness of this order. Before parting with this order, it would be appropriate to mention that the Deputy Commissioner merely directed the revenue officers to obey the mandate of Section 2(g)(6) of the Act as upheld by this Court in Jai Singh and others v. State of Haryana (supra). In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforestated liberty. July 13, 2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE