CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13495 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 04, 2011 Rampal .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab 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. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr. G.S.Ghuman, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Gram Panchayat, Mardanheri, Block Sanaur, District Patiala, had filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) for ejectment of the petitioner, which was dismissed. As per the petitioner, the Gram Panchayat has again filed an application under Section 7 of the Act, whereas the land in question does not belong to Gram Panchayat. As per averments, the entire village previously belonged to one Doi Sahib but was recorded as Shamlat deh hasab CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13495 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: rasad jar khewat Mr.Doi Sahib Bahadur. The petitioner on the other hand had filed an application under Section 11 of the Act, seeking declaration of ownership in regard to 99 kanals 7 marlas land falling in the village. In the year 1959, mutation No.605 was entered, mutating the land in favour of Nagar Panchayat. According to the petitioner, this was done on the basis of executive instructions/letter. Submission is that the executive instructions can not take away the constitutional right of a person to own the property or the ownership rights. The petitioner, however, had never taken any action to challenge this mutation done in favour of the Gram Panchayat in the year 1959. The petitioner pleads that prior to 1950, this land was Banjar Kadim, though owned by Dio Sahib. Accordingly, this was never put to any use for common purposes of the village. The petitioner claims to be in possession for more than 50-60 years and, thus, has claimed the same under his ownership by way of adverse possession. The petitioner appeared and gave evidence that the land never vested in the Gram Panchayat and he was in possession thereof for more than 50 years. The petitioner also stated that the land being Banjar Kadim was never used for common purposes. In support, the petitioner relied upon cross-examination of Bant Singh, Sarpanch, who admitted that the land was not given on Chakota and was Banjar Kadim. Grievance is that the Collector without framing the issue and appreciating the facts of the case, decided against the petitioner, ignoring the fact that the petition under Section 7 of the Act CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13495 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: filed by the Gram Panchayat had earlier been rejected. The issue of Panchayat's right to file a second application under Section 7 of the Act had also earlier reached this Court through Civil Writ Petition No.2727 of 1983, when the matter was remanded by this Court for fresh decision after affording opportunity of hearing. Reference is also made to order passed in another writ petition No.15323 of 1997, where some residents of the village had filed a petition against other residents, including the petitioner, but the said writ petition was rendered infructuous on the ground that the power under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 had been vested in the Financial Commissioner, Punjab. Consolidation proceedings were held in the village in 1959-60. A Scheme was prepared, where 1604 Bighas 3 Biswas land was indicated as Barani and 2508 Bighas 7 biswas as Banjar Kadim. In this Scheme, it was provided that the Village land belongs to Nagar Panchayat but was in the cultivating possession of the proprietary body. As per the counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Collector without appreciating the revenue record and the earlier order passed under Section 7 of the Act and by ignoring the evidence has passed the impugned order, which, thus, is termed illegal. It is pointed out that Collector had decided number of cases of many parties together and jointly without giving any finding pertaining to the issues raised by the petitioner. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner had preferred an appeal under Section 11(2) of the Act, and Joint Development CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13495 OF 2011 :{ 4 }: Commissioner, exercising the powers of Commissioner, had dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the Collector. The petitioner impugned these orders by filing Civil Writ Petition No.13119 of 2010, which was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh and so has filed the present petition. Before the Collector, the Gram Panchayat had pleaded that the petitioner was not in continuous possession of the land prior to 26.1.1950. it was also pleaded that the land in dispute was in the ownership of Gram Panchayat and the Panchayat had every right over the land in every respect. As per the Collector, the petitioner could not prove that he had made this land cultivable by spending money or the development of his possession over the land in dispute. The Collector accordingly came to the conclusion that Nagar Panchayat was the owner of the land. Gram Panchayat was also shown to be cultivator and the land was given on Chakota as per entries in the revenue record. In the consolidation scheme, it was noted that the land referred to be of Nagar Panchayat and was scattered over various parts of the village, which was under cultivation of Pattedars. The Khata of Nagar Panchayat was entered Makbooja under Chirrat Khasra numbers, which is not liable to division as per condition of Wajib Ul Araj. The collector also noticed that the land mutated in the name of Gram Panchayat was never challenged in any Court of law and, thus, the title stood transferred to Gram Panchayat under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is, thus, noticed that the petitioner could not prove his possession prior to 26.1.1950 and could not show any evidence of he being CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13495 OF 2011 :{ 5 }: Khewatdar. The application was accordingly dismissed. Similarly, the Appellate Authority has noticed that the land was mutated in favour of Gram Panchayat on 22.8.1959, when the Act came into being. The petitioner was claiming ownership by way of adverse possession. Previously, the land was in the possession of Makbooja Malkan and nowhere the possession of the petitioner was recorded prior to 26.1.1950. Observing that there is presumption of truth attached to revenue record, it is noticed that these entries were never challenged by the petitioner. The entries relied upon by the petitioner are of Garmarusi, where the predecessors of the petitioner are shown in illegal possession. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There is no infirmity pointed out in the view taken by the Court except for the fact that the evidence has not been correctly appreciated or the effect of earlier application filed under Section 7 of the Act having been dismissed. The counsel for the petitioner was given time and opportunity to place on record the grounds of appeal to ascertain, if any such pleas were raised, but despite adjournment, the grounds of appeal have not been placed on record. It is also noticed that Collector had passed an order on 18.4.2006 and the appeal was decided on 23.4.2008. The writ petition has now been filed in the year 2011. Even the earlier writ petition, which was withdrawn, was filed in the year 2010. There is no explanation forthcoming to explain this delayed approach. Once the petitioner has failed to challenge the order of mutation done in favour of the Panchayat in the year 1959 and for all these years has allowed it to remain in existence, he can not be heard at this belated stage to CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13495 OF 2011 :{ 6 }: claim ownership of the land, when he has no right or title to show. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. August 04, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE