CWP No. 669 of 1985 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 669 of 1985 Date of decision: 8.2.2008 Giani Ram ...Petitioner Versus Gram Panchayat Bidhal and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.GAREWAL Present: Mr. R.S. Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Atul Gaur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. HP Verman and Tajinder Bishnoi, Advocates, for respondent No.1. K.S.GAREWAL, J. The dispute in this case is between Giani Ram and the Gram Panchayat of Bidhal. Giani Ram filed a suit under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming that 46 kanals of land in Bidhal, owned by Pana Dungran was in his possession as owner/shareholder. The Panchayat had wrongly got the land mutated in its favour vide mutation dated August 17, 1972. CWP No. 669 of 1985 2 The panchayat filed an application under Section 7 of the Act before the Collector. After Giani Ram was summoned, he filed CWP 5746 of 1975 in the High Court and vide order dated October 20, 1982, the High Court directed that proceedings under Section 13-A of the Act be initiated. According to the petitioner, he was in possession of the property as share-holder of Pana Dungran, had planted an orchard of mangoes and guavas and had also constructed his house. The land in dispute had been banjar qadim, it had been cultivated by the petitioner and had never been used for common purpose. The Panchayat appeared and refuted the averments of the petitioner. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade framed issues and came to the conclusion that the Gram Panchayat was the owner, the petitioner had failed to implead all the other biswadars as proforma-defendants. The Assistant Collector found no merit in the petition, the petition was dismissed on November 11, 1983. Giani Ram filed an appeal before the Collector which was also dismissed on November 12, 1984. The Collector had relied heavily on the position of the land as on January 9, 1954 in order to see if the land was used for common purpose or not. The Collector came to the conclusion that in the jamabandies for the years 1954-1955 and 1958-1959 the land in dispute has been shown as johar, banjar qadim, dharamshala and chah from which it is proved that it was being used for common purpose of the village. In this petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution, challenging the orders of the Assistant Collector Ist Grade and Collector dated November 11, 1983 and November 12, 1984 respectively, it has been CWP No. 669 of 1985 3 pleaded that shamlat Pana Dungran in Bidhal had only some portion recorded as gairmumkin johar or chah pukhta used for common purposes of Pana and rest of the area was not used for common purpose. The categoric case of the petitioner was that khasra 1839, 1840, 1841 and 1845 had been banjar qadim since 1934-35 and has been so recorded continuously. In consolidation the land got converted into new khasra numbers in respect of the land measuring 46 kanals 1 marla but it remained recorded as banjar qadim owned by shamlat pana dungran hasab rasad raqba khewat under self cultivation of the proprietors. It was asserted that the Panchayat had obtained a wrong mutation on August 17, 1972 in its favour. The petitioner had been in possession of the land as one of the proprietors/co-sharers of Pana, he had planted orchards of mangoes and guavas. On behalf of the Panchayat, the argument was that the land in question had been used for common purposes and the residents of the village and it was not banjar qadim. The mutation had been rightly sanctioned in favour of the Panchayat. The petitioner had encroached upon the property and raised the construction. The Gram Panchayat was the owner of the land and had every right to eject the petitioner. The main argument of the petitioner is that munstarka malkan land which has not been reserved for common purpose of the village belongs to the proprietors and mutation of the land as Pana Dungran in favour of the Gram Panchayat could not stand. The land shown as shamlat pana dungran was not shamlat deh unless some benefit was enjoyed by the villagers. Ownership of the Gram Panchayat in respect of shamlat deh was not legally valid. CWP No. 669 of 1985 4 Learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the order of the Collector dated November 12, 1984 wherein the Collector had specifically recorded that 18 kanals 18 marlas of land was gairmumkin johar, 2 marlas was for dharamshala and 6 malras was used as chah. Therefore, this entire land was being used for common purpose of the village. Reference was also made to shartlwajab-ul-arz 1909-10 to the effect that this land vested in the Gram Panchayat and uncultivable land was used for grazing. In this way, it was being used for common purposes of the village and it was correctly vested in the Gram Panchayat. The Collector had correctly referred to the position of the land as in 1954 and the jamabandi of 1954-55 wherein some of the land was shown as johar, some as banjar qadim, some as dharamshala and some as gairmumkin chah. The petitioner had come into possession of the land in dispute for the first time in 1972-73. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the land was part of shamlat pana dungra and was not being used for common purpose of the village, is without basis as the revenue record certainly shows that the land was used for gairmum johar, dharmshala, chah and part of it was banjar qadim. In any case, if the land was part of Pana Dungran, then the petitioner should have impleaded all the other share-holders of Pana Dungran and also shown through documentary evidence that the area of 46 kanals which was in his possession was his entitlement as share- holder and was not in excess of his share. The petitioner's counsel has referred to a large number of authorities, which would only apply if he succeeds on first principles to show that the land was not being used for common purpose of the village. CWP No. 669 of 1985 5 Since the petitioner has failed to prove this fact, the case law cited by him does not come to his aid. Unauthorized possession over shamlat deh does not confer any title on the petitioner. In view of the above, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed. February 8, 2008 (K.S. GAREWAL) prem JUDGE