CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5832 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 20, 2009 Sehaj Ram and another .....Petitioners VERSUS The Collector, Yamuna Nagar and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Mahavir Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. On 16.11.2006, application filed by the Gram Panchayat under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) for ejectment of the petitioners was allowed and penalty at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per hectare per annum was ordered. The appeal filed against the same order was also dismissed on 26.6.2007 due to non deposit of penalty amount. Though the penalty was reduced to Rs.4000/- per hectare per annum but still the petitioners impugned the same by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 13468 of 2007. This writ petition was disposed of with a direction to decide the appeal of the petitioners on merits, which had earlier CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5832 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: been dismissed only on the ground of non-deposit of penalty. The appeal was then dismissed on merits on 10.6.2008. The petitioners have impugned the said orders through the present writ petition. The submission by the counsel for the petitioners is that the land in dispute is not a Shamlat Deh as defined under Section 2 (g)(i) of the Act and rather the land falls within the exception clauses of the definition. Plea further is that the land was not earmarked/reserved or utilized for any common purpose and management and control of the same was never with the Gram Panchayat. The counsel also contends that the petitioners had raised a question of title before Assistant Collector Ist Grade but the same was not decided. As per the petitioners, the nature and character of the land in question is barani and gair mumkin darar and, thus, no income is derived therefrom by the petitioners and thus, no penalty was leviable. The counsel for the petitioners has made reference to entries in the jamabandies to show that the land in question was described as `shamlat deh hasad hissa halsari'. The subsequent change in the jamabandi is recorded in the column of ownership as shamlat deh and in the column of possession and cultivation, the petitioners are shown as Gair Marusian in equal share. The ownership, which was transferred in the name of Gram Panchayat on the basis of amendment in the provisions in the year 1992, was again changed after the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Jai Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (2) PLR 658. By pointing out that the land in question was not shown to be reserved for any common purpose in the consolidation scheme, the counsel pleads that this will CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5832 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: not vest in the Gram Panchayat. Submission is that the Gram Panchayat was not justified in filing the application under Section 7 of the Act for eviction of the petitioners. It may need a notice that initially the Assistant Collector had taken a view that the land in dispute was shown in the ownership of Panchayat and the possession of the petitioners was found to be illegal. Accordingly, the petitioners were ordered to be ejected on 31.3.2006. The appeal filed by the petitioners was also dismissed, against which they filed a writ petition before this Court. The orders of the Assistant Collector and that of the Collector were set-aside to the extent that the penalty was imposed upon the respondents without basis. On remand, sufficient opportunities were given to the parties to produce their respective evidence. The petitioners recorded their evidence to show that they were in possession of the land from the time of their forefathers. It was also stated that the land in dispute was hit by river action. The evidence was also given to the effect that land did not come within the definition of `shamlat deh'. The Gram Panchayat, on the other hand, produced a copy of jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 and resolution dated 27.8.2003 and another resolution dated 20.4.2005 in support of their stand. The Assistant Collector on the basis of evidence came to conclude that the land in dispute was shamlat deh and as such, it vested in the Panchayat in view of Section 2(g)(i) of the Act. The petitioners were found to be in illegal possession of the land and hence, order of their eviction was passed and the penalty imposed. The revenue entries were also taken note of where the land is described as shamlat deh. As per the petitioners, this entry has been CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5832 OF 2009 :{ 4 }: wrongly made. According to the counsel, the land does not fall within the definition of shamlat deh and management and control of land had also never remained with the Gram Panchayat. As per the counsel the land in dispute was never reserved for any common purpose and the same was never used for any common purpose of the village. It is then submitted that question of title would also be involved and till the same was decided, the ejectment of the petitioner could not have been ordered. On the other hand, Gram Panchayat, as already noticed, pointed out that the ownership of the land in dispute was shown as Panchayat Deh, which will come within the definition of `shamlat deh'. As per the respondent- Gram Panchayat, the land was reserved for common purposes. The mutation of the land was changed from Panchayat Deh to Shamlat Deh and as such, it did not effect the rights of the ownership of the Gram Panchayat. During the course of arguments, the counsel for the petitioners conceded that the petitioners have not challenged the mutation entries made in the revenue record showing this land to be shamlat deh. The counsel also could not show anything to dispute the finding that once the land is shown as shamlat deh, it would ipso facto means that the same was being used for common purpose. Reference in this regard was made to Shiv Charan Singh and others Vs. Gram Panchayat Narike, Tehsil Malerkotla, 1974 PLR 331. On the basis of the evidence, the Appellate Court apparently came to conclude that the petitioners were not able to place on record prima-facie material to show that there was dispute in regard to title of the suit land. The Appellate Court rightly viewed CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5832 OF 2009 :{ 5 }: that there was no necessity to get the same proved separately whether shamlat land was reserved for common purposes. The Appellate Court declined to go into the question of title as the requirement projected in Section 7 of the Act in this regard had not been met. The proviso under Section 7 of the Act says that a question of right, title or interest in land or property if is raised by any person may need to be decided if a prima-facie case is made out in support thereof. Only then the Collector is to direct the person to submit his claim under Section 11. The prima-facie material did not show anything in regard to the dispute of title. The reliance made by the petitioners on the jamabandi for the year 1945-46 to prove their possession was also found not supporting the plea of the petitioners that the land in question was in possession of the ancestral of the petitioners. Even as per the Full Bench decision in the case of Jai Singh's case (supra), all the lands which have been contributed by the proprietors on the basis of prorata cut and which had not been earmarked for any common purpose in the consolidation scheme, is not to vest in the Gram Panchayat or the State Government whereas all such lands which have been as per the Consolidation scheme reserved for common purposes whether utilized or not shall vest in the State Government or Gram Panchayat. The factual dispute to the effect whether this land was reserved for common purpose or not can not be gone into while in exercise of writ jurisdiction. I, therefore, find no merit in the petition and would dismiss the same in limine. April 20, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE