IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 12104 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 17.11.2011 Bakhtawar Singh and another .... PETITIONERS Versus Joint Development Commissioner (IRD), exercising the powers of Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Harminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Manohar Lall, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. Padam Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.3. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioners have filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 11.1.2007 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Collector, Kapurthala, whereby the petition filed by them under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') was dismissed; as well as the order dated 2.11.2007 (Annexure P-7), passed by the Commissioner dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners against the said CWP No. 12104 of 2009 -2- order. The dispute in this case is regarding the land measuring 12 Kanals 4 Marlas, situated in village Maksudpur, Tehsil Bholath, District Kapurthala. According to the petitioners, this land is owned by the `Local Malkan' to the extent of 1/8th share and `Matruka Mahajdeen' to the extent of 7/8th share. During consolidation proceedings, the disputed land was kept as such by imposing pro-rata cut on the holdings of the proprietors of the village, therefore, this land belongs to the proprietors and does not vest in the Gram Panchayat being shamilat deh. On the other hand, it is the stand of the Gram Panchayat of the village (respondent No.3 herein) that the land in dispute is of Shamilat Patti and was being used for the benefit of the village community as a `Charand', therefore, as per Section 2 (g) (3) of the Act, this land falls under the definition of shamilat deh. The Collector as well as the Commissioner, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties and perusing the material available on record, have recorded a finding of fact that in the revenue record, the land in dispute has been described as `Charand', and the same is being used as such by the inhabitants of the village. It has been held that as per Jamabandi for the year 1962-63, nature of the land has been described as `Charand' and proprietors of the Patti are recorded as owners of the land. It has also been recorded that at one point of time, nature of the land was changed by the Consolidation Officer, but on a petition filed under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, CWP No. 12104 of 2009 -3- 1948, the matter was remanded and the Settlement Officer, after hearing the parties, set aside the said order and remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer, who vide his orders dated 16.1.1987 and 5.5.1987 has restored the nature of the land into Patti land. Primarily, the title suit of the petitioners was dismissed on the basis that the land in question was `Charand' before the consolidation and subsequent to the consolidation, and it is also recorded as `Charand' in the revenue record. On the basis of the revenue record, both the authorities have come to the conclusion that the land which has been described as Patti land and is being used as `Charand' falls under the definition of shamilat deh in view of Section 2 (g) (3) of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that though in column No.8 of the jamabandi for the year 1962-63 (Annexure P-8), nature of the land has been described as `Gair Mumkin Charand', but according to him this land was never used by the inhabitants of the village for `Charand', therefore, it does not fall under the definition of shamilat deh. Such contention cannot be accepted, as Section 2 (g) (3) of the Act clearly provides that “shamilat deh” includes lands described in the revenue records as Pattis and used according to revenue records for the benefit of the village community or a part thereof or for common purposes of the village. This Court in Gram Panchayat Sadhraur and Gram Sabha Sadhraur Versus Baldev Singh and others, 1977 PLJ 276 (F.B.) held that the conclusion that the land in dispute is used for common purpose of the village is to be CWP No. 12104 of 2009 -4- established from the entries made in the revenue record. In Section 2 (g) (5) of the Act, it say it has been provided that “according to revenue record, the land is used for the benefit of village community”. In this case, as per the revenue record, the disputed land belongs to the proprietors of the Patti and the same is being used for the common purposes of the village, because as per the revenue record, nature of the land is `Charand' and such land being shamilat deh vests in the Gram Panchayat. Thus, the authorities below, while dismissing the title suit as well as appeal of the petitioners, have rightly come to the conclusion that they have failed to prove their ownership on the land in dispute. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the impugned orders, passed by the authorities below. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE November 17, 2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) ndj JUDGE