IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.816 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 11.05.2011 Bakhshish Singh …..Appellant versus The Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.Onkar Rai, Advocate for the appellant Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) C.M. No.2185 of 2011 In view of reasons mentioned in this application, which is accompanied by an affidavit, it is allowed and 193 days delay in filing the appeal stands condoned. LPA No.816 of 2011(O&M) This appeal has been filed against judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on 16.8.2010 and also against an order passed in review application on 28.2.2011. The appellant filed an application under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short, the Act), claiming ownership and possession of 9 marla of the land, on a ground that the said land was allotted to his father for service rendered at the time of LPA No.816 of 2011(O&M) consolidation proceedings in the village. The Collector under the Act, vide order dated 7.10.2009, rejected claimed of the appellant, by observing as under:- “To prove his case the applicant alongwith witnesses appeared and reiterated the whole version of the application and produced documents on the filed which are Ex.Alto Ex.Alto Ex.A9. He has categorically stated that the father of the petitioner was Jareeb-Kash (Chainman) and was allotted the site in dispute in lieu of the services rendered by him. The witness also stated that the father of the petitioner was Jareeb- Kash (chain man) and was also allotted the suit land. On the other hand the counsel of the respondent has stated that the suit land was reserved for public latrines during the consolidation of holding and the same is shown in the field book for the year 1962-63 which is Ex.R2 on the file. It is also argued that earlier public Nala which was puca by the Gram Panchayat was there is disputed site and the waste water of the houses of villagers used to flow there, but the applicant forcibly changed the flow of water. The counsel for the respondent has also argued that the petitioner has failed to prove that his father was Jareeb Kash (Chainman) and was allotted the land in dispute and also failed to prove that how the Revenue entries have been changed. The witnesses of the petitioner are interested witnesses, further no proof of allotment has been produced by the applicant so the petitioner has failed to prove his case.” It was found, as a matter of fact, that the appellant has failed to show that the land was allotted to his father at the time of consolidation proceedings. To the contrary, by making reference to the revenue record, it was observed that the land, in fact, was reserved for public latrines. It was so said by taking note of the entries made in the successive jamabandis from the time the consolidation proceedings took place in the village. Appellant went in appeal, which was dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 2 LPA No.816 of 2011(O&M) 16.4.2010. Thereafter, he came to this Court by filing CWP No.14465 of 2010, which was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 16.8.2010. It was found, as a matter of fact, that there was no evidence on record to show that the land was ever allotted to the father of the appellant for service rendered at the time of consolidation proceedings. Thereafter, review application bearing RA No.290 of 2010 was filed and a prayer was made to review that order, by placing reliance upon document Annexure P4/A. That application was declined by the learned Single Judge on a ground that this document was not produced before any of the authorities below and also before the learned Single Judge when writ petition was dismissed. We have seen the document in question. No authenticity can be attached to it. After describing Mustarka Malkaan as owner of the land and showing that this land was reserved for public latrines, at the end, some entry has been made, showing father of the appellant as owner of 5 marla land only. How this entry came into existence, as per law, if any piece of land is allotted to a right holder or to any body else, a resolution is to be passed, which has not been produced on record and further that entry is not recorded in the Misal Haqiat and also in the successive jamabandis till date. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 11.05.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 3