C.W.P No. 2925 of 1987 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 2925 of 1987 (O&M) Date of decision : October 01, 2010 Gram Panchayat Suhagheri, Tehsil Sirhind, District Patiala. ...... Petitioner v. The State of Punjab and others, ...... Respondents *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Kamaljit Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Gill, DAG Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. J.S.Bhatia, Advocate for Mr. Ravindra Jain, Advocate for respondents No.4, 6 and 7. Mr.ADS Jatana, Advocate for respondent No.5. Mr. Surjit Singh Suri, Advocate *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This writ petition has been filed against the orders, dated 25.1.1986 and 29.5.1985 (Annexures P-1 and P-2), passed by the C.W.P No. 2925 of 1987 (O&M) ::2:: authorities under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), whereby an application filed under Section 11 of the Act was dismissed. Originally, the application was filed by Mukand Singh on the allegation that the respondents were relatives of members of the Gram Panchayat and it was only to protect their relatives that the Gram Panchayat was not taking any action to retrieve its property, which was in their illegal possession. In reply, the respondents took a preliminary plea that the application under Section 11 of the Act could not lie at the instance of Mukand Singh since he was not claiming any share in the property in dispute. On merits, the plea taken was that the land in dispute had been purchased much prior to coming into force of the Act by sale deeds from 1910 to 1941. It was further pleaded that the respondents had purchased the share of not only the land in the ownership of the vendors but also their due share in the shamilat. The Collector went through the entire evidence and arrived at the findings that Mukand Singh had no locus standi to file the application. However, on merits also, he held that purchase of the respondents was not only of the ownership of their vendors but also of their due share in the shamilat. Consequently, the application was dismissed both on law and on merits. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority did not discuss the entire evidence produced with regard to the extent of the shamilat purchased but agreeing with the finding of the learned Collector regarding the locus standi of Mukand Singh to prosecute the application, dismissed the appeal. C.W.P No. 2925 of 1987 (O&M) ::3:: It is in these circumstances that the parties are before this Court. Learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has argued that once it was held that Mukand Singh has no locus standi to file the application, the only course open to the authorities was to reject the claim on that ground without returning finding on merit. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents have urged that once the entire evidence has been discussed and it has been duly held that the respondents had purchased not only the land under the ownership of their vendors but also their due share in the shamilat and since the matter relates to sales having been effected from 1910 to 1941 it would not be just and fair in writ jurisdiction to give a fresh lease of life to this litigation. Learned counsel also pointed out that even while holding that Mukand Singh has no locus standi, the Collector nevertheless, on merits, did allow the application in respect of the excess land held by respondents No.6 to 8. Apart from the fact that under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the paramount consideration is that of sub-serving cause of justice, it can also not be lost sight of that under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC, it is mandated that notwithstanding the fact that a case may be disposed of on any preliminary issue, the Court shall pronounce judgments on all issues. As far as the merit of the controversy is concerned, it is not disputed that under Section 2(g)(5)(iv) of the Act, land which has been acquired before 26.1.1950 and is not in excess of the share of the vendor in the shamilat deh cannot be included in the definition of shamilat deh. I have gone through the entire record of the case with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties and find that it has been C.W.P No. 2925 of 1987 (O&M) ::4:: correctly held that the respondents had purchased the land including shamilat deh from their vendors and the portion of shamilat deh, which was purchased by them, was not in excess of the shares of their vendors. Consequently, finding no merit in this writ petition the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main petition has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) October 01, 2010. JUDGE `kk'