IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.WP No. 11103 of 2011. [O&M] Date of Decision: 2nd August, 2011. Puran Chand & Anr. Petitioners through Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate Versus Director Rural Development & Panchayat & Ors. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioners seek quashing of the orders dated 30.07.2009 and 15.12.2010 [Annexures P-10 and P-11] respectively whereby the Collector under the Punjab Village Common Lands [Regulation] act, 1961 has dismissed the application under Section 11 of the Act and the appeal preferred by them has also been dismissed by the Appellate Authority. The record reveals that the petitioners sought a declaration of their ownership and possessory rights over land measuring 679 kanals 5 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Tikka Tirhari, Hadbast No. 396, Tehsil Dhar Kalan, District Gurdaspur. The Gram Panchayat opposed the petitioners' prayer and asserted that the land in dispute was shamlat deh duly vested with it The Gram Panchayat's case was that the petitioners were in illegal and unauthorized possession of the Panchayat land. In order to establish their title, the petitioners produced the revenue record including Jamabandi for the year 1937-38 wherein the entry was made in favour of one Thakur who was stated to be predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. They also produced copies of Jamabandis for the years 1941-42, 1945-46, 1955-56, 1963-64, 1972-73 and 1992-93 to establish their possession over the suit land. The aforementioned documentary evidence has been minutely scrutinized by the authorities below before concluding that none of the entries in the revenue record establish that the petitioners were Khewatdars of the village. Similarly, in the Jamabandi for the year 1963-64, the petitioners were shown to be in possession of 285 kanals of land only and in all the subsequent Jamabandis, the ownership entries were in favour of the Gram Panchayat, though the predecessor-in-interest or the petitioners were shown to be in cultivating possession as Gair Dakhilkar under the Panchayat, namely, that the petitioners were cultivating under the Gram Panchayat. The Authorities below have, thus, concluded that the possession of the petitioners over the land was always for and on behalf of the Gram Panchayat. Similarly, the Authorities below have drawn an adverse inference against the petitioners for not producing the revenue record of 20 years in between 1972-73 to 1992-93. The petitioners sought and were granted time to produce on record the documents in support of their proprietorship/ownership. No such documents have, however, been placed on record so far. The petitioners have taken the plea that the land in dispute does not fall within the shamlat deh as defined under Section 2[g] as it is a 'hilly area' and is expressly excluded from the definition of shamlat deh under the Act. It is also claimed that the property in dispute is governed under the provisions of the Indian Forest Act. I am afraid, no such plea can be allowed to be taken by the petitioners in these writ proceedings. The question as to whether or not the land in dispute is a hilly area is a question of fact which ought to have been proved before the Collector by leading cogent evidence. Similarly, whether the land is a notified 'forest', is also a question of fact, to be proved by producing the relevant notification[s]. No such exercise has been undertaken by the petitioners nor such a plea was taken by the petitioners before the authorities below. I am, therefore, of the considered view that no such new plea can be allowed to be taken up by the petitioners at this stage. No case to interfere with the impugned orders is made out. Dismissed. August 02, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE