CWP No.9041 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.9041 of 2010 Date of Decision: 6.9.2010 Angrez Gir .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and another ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Malkiat Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing orders dated 13.2.2009 and 17.3.2008,passed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department,Punjab and the Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Patiala, respectively. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), for declaration of his ownership. The Gram Panchayat opposed the application by asserting its title. The Collector, vide order dated 13.11.2002, accepted the petition and declared that as the land in dispute was not used for common purposes, it does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. Aggrieved by this order, the Gram Panchayat filed an appeal. CWP No.9041 of 2010 2 The Director, Panchayats set aside the order and remanded the case to the Collector. The Collector reconsidered the matter and dismissed the petition by holding that the Gram Panchayat is the owner of the land in dispute. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the land in dispute is recorded as “Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Mundarza Shajra Nasab” and in possession of “Makbuza Malkan”, it does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. Furthermore, the land is excluded from Shamilat Deh, as it was Banjar Kadim, in the year 1950. It is further argued that as the petitioner is in possession as a proprietor, the impugned order holding the Gram Panchayat as an owner is illegal and void. I have heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the impugned orders and do not find any reason to differ with the finding recorded in the impugned orders. The Gram Panchayat is consistently recorded as owner, whereas the petitioner is recorded as “Gair Marusi, Bila Lagan Bawaja Kabza Jabran” i.e. a person in unauthorised occupation. The petitioner has not adduced any evidence to establish his or his predecessors' possession prior to 1950. In fact, the petitioner filed Civil Suit No.323 before the Senior Sub Judge, Patiala, claiming ownership by way of adverse possession. The suit was dismissed on 25.4.1973. By raising a plea of ownership by adverse possession, the petitioner has in essence, acknowledged the ownership of the Gram Panchayat The argument that the land was Banjar Kadim before 1950, remains unsubstantiated for want of any evidence. The argument that as the land is recorded as “Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Mundarza Shajra Nasab” and in possession of “Makbuza Malkan”, it does not vest in the Gram Panchayat, merits rejection. Section CWP No.9041 of 2010 3 2(g)(1) clearly provides that land described in the revenue record as “Shamilat Deh”, vests in the Gram Panchayat. The expressions “Hasab Rasad Mundarza Shajra Nasab” or “Makbuja Malkan” that follow the words “Shamilat Deh”, merely refer to the extent of ownership prior to the enactment of the “Shamilat Law” and the “1961 Act”. In view of what has been stated herein above, as the impugned orders do not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or of law, the writ petition is dismissed. 6.9.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE