IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 1732 of 2006 Date of Decision: December 07, 2011 Baldev Singh and others. ….Petitioners Versus Director Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH. Present: Mr. Sarjit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jagdev Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Manohar Lall, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. H.P.S. Ghuman, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. Paramjeet Singh, J. Present petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of order dated 15.12.2003 (Annexure P/10) passed by the Collector, whereby application of the petitioners under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been rejected and order dated 03.06.2005 (Annexure P/11) passed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab (exercising the powers of the Commissioner) whereby appeal had been dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners claim themselves to be Khewatdars of the village Bijalpur Tehsil Samana, District Patiala, on the ground that they had purchased land vide sale deed dated 15.10.1992 and the father of the CWP No.1732 of 2006 petitioners had also purchased the land vide sale deeds dated 13.05.1983 and 27.05.1986 and all these sale deeds are reflected in the jamabandi for the year 2002-03. It is averred that the consolidation proceedings in the village took place in the year 1960-61. Prior to the consolidation, the property was recorded as “Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Shajra Nasab”. The mutation sanctioned on 25.01.1963 (Annexure P/3) in favour of the Gram Panchayat has no affect on the rights of the petitioners. The Gram Panchayat contested the application on the ground that the petitioners are not proprietors of the village. They are only purchasers. They have no right in the land of the proprietary body. It has been specifically mentioned in the reply that the petitioners are Chakotedars and had been taking the land on patta and the patta resigters bear their signatures (Annexures P/5 to P/9). The petitioners are not in possession of land on or before 26.01.1950. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner. The Collector had recorded a finding that the petitioners have not been able to prove their possession prior to 26.01.1950 and had also recorded a finding that the petitioners have also failed to prove that the petitioners are Khewatdars of the village. It has been specifically held by the Collector that the possession of the petitioners is as lessee. They cannot claim ownership right over the land in dispute and also the finding had been recorded by the Collector that Nagar Panchayat has been mentioned as owner in the column of ownership. The said 2 CWP No.1732 of 2006 findings have been upheld by the Commissioner by making specific reference to the entries made in the jamabandies for the years 1972-73, 1977-78, 1982-83, 1987-88, 1992-93 and 1997-98 and in the rent column qua Balbir Singh son of Sher Singh, petitioner No.5, it has been mentioned that he is in unauthorized possession without payment of rent. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the land is Banjar Kadim and cannot vest in the Gram Panchayat. The revenue record i.e. jamabandi (record of rights) clearly shows that the property initially was “Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Shajra Nasab” and it was mutated in the name of the Gram Panchayat vide mutation No. 245 sanctioned on 25.01.1963 (Annexure P/3). Even in the jamabandi for the years 1960-61 (Annexure P/4), in the ownership column, the land has been shown as “Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Shajra Nasab” and in the cultivation column, possession has been shown as “Self-cultivation of the Nagar Panchayat”. The reading of Annexures P/5 to P/9 (the documents from the Patta Registers) clearly shows that this land is being taken by some of the petitioners on chakota, and in the patta register, signatures of Balwinder Singh, Baldev Singh and Jarnail Singh are in existence. Balbir Singh (petitioner No.5) has been shown to be as unauthorized possession without payment of rent in the revenue record. The revenue record shows that the property is under the control of Panchayat as per Section 23-A of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 and Rule 16(ii) of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949, as such, it vests in the Gram Panchayat. Besides this, the documents 3 CWP No.1732 of 2006 clearly indicate that the petitioners had been taking the land on lease and the lessee cannot challenge the title of his landlord. The lease has been taken by the petitioners from the Gram Panchayat thereby accepting the Gram Panchayat as owner of the land in question. The findings have rightly been recorded by the Collector, as well as, the Commissioner, after appreciation of the revenue record that Gram Panchayat is the owner of the land in question. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners are the proprietors since they had purchased the land in the village from the residents of the village. There is no iota of evidence on record from which it can be proved that by way of purchase they have acquired any right in the proprietary body nor they have annexed the sale deed with the present writ petition to indicate that they had purchased any proportionate right in the shamlat land as per those sale deeds. There is also no iota of evidence on record that what was the total land of the petitioners and to what extent, they have any share in the proprietary body. There is evidence on record to indicate that the petitioners are the not proprietors of the village. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is devoid of merit that the petitioners are proprietors of the village and are entitled to declaration under Section 11 of the Act. It has also been held by the Collector that the petitioners have failed to show from the revenue record that their possession over the land in dispute is prior to 26.01.1950 which may indicate that they falls in the exceptions mentioned in 2(g) of the Act. 4 CWP No.1732 of 2006 In view of the findings of fact recorded by the Collector and the Commissioner, as well as the revenue record placed on the file, it is clear that the petitioners have no right to claim ownership over the land in dispute. The impugned orders do not call for any interference in this Court. Writ petition is devoid of merit. Dismissed. ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) JUDGE December 07, 2011 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkd JUDGE 5