IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5015 of 1985 (O&M) Date of decision:20.10.2011 Kundan Lal and others. ...Petitioners versus The Joint Director, Panchayats, Punjab (exercising the powers of the Commissioner), Chandigarh, and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. R.C.Setia, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The issue involved in this writ petition is the tenability of the order passed in ejectment at the instance of the gram panchayat, who claimed the property in possession of the petitioners as the property having vested in panchayat. The admitted case was that the particular property had been described in the revenue records as jumla malkan and the contention was that the record would only be taken as acknowledgment of a joint ownership of the Civil Writ Petition No.5015 of 1985 (O&M) - 2 - rightholders of the village. The further contention is that the property had been set apart for common purpose in consolidation proceedings, in which event, only the property could be taken to be under the control and superintendence of the panchayat. Only then, although the ownership would vest in rightholders, an action for ejectment could lie at the instance of the panchayat. The learned counsel for the petitioners would refer to a decision of this Court in Bagga Singh Versus the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur and others-1984 PLJ 499, where this Court held that when a property is not set apart for a common purpose it cannot be a subject of ejectment at the instance of the panchayat unless it is shown that the property had vested in the panchayat. 2. The counsel for the respondent took time at the previous hearing to produce records if there existed, to show that the property had vested in the panchayat. Although officer, namely, Lokesh Kumar, Panchayat Secretary, Block Fazilka, District Fazilka, is present in Court, the counsel says that there are no records to show the vesting of the property in the panchayat through any revenue records. The counsel is also fair to produce before me a judgment of this Court in Ram Rati and others Versus State of Haryana and others-2010 (2) RCR (Civil) 576 where this Court has held that the land which was recorded as Jumla Malkan Wa Digar Hazdaran Arazi Hasab Rasad, Jumla Malkan or Mushtarka Malkan cannot be taken to be reserved for common purpose unless it was so stated in Civil Writ Petition No.5015 of 1985 (O&M) - 3 - the consolidation proceedings and if they are not so reserved, the question of vesting in the gram panchayat does not arise. The Court also held that if the gram panchayat is to claim any right or possession of the land, it has to assert the same by showing it to vest in the gram panchayat on the basis of the revenue records and also by showing that the land falls or at some stage fell within the definition of 'shamlat deh'. 3. The order passed directing the eviction cannot be sustained. It is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 20.10.2011 sanjeev