LPA No.446 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.446 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 14, 2011 Nishan Singh and others .....APPELLANTS Versus Gram Panchayat, Rajabad and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL --- Present: Mr.R.S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. S.K. Tripathi, Advocate, for the appellants. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated 11.10.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No.18407 of 2010) filed by the appellants for quashing mutation No.448 with regard to the disputed land sanctioned on 2.9.2001 in favour of the Gram Panchayat, has been dismissed. Though this appeal is barred by limitation as along with the appeal the appellants have filed an application (CM No.1212 of 2011) for condonation of 116 days of delay in filing the appeal, however, without taking the said delay into consideration, we have heard the learned counsel for the appellants on merits and gone through the impugned order passed by LPA No.446 of 2011 (O&M) -2- the learned Single Judge. Undisputedly, in the revenue record, the land in dispute was recorded as Jumla Mushtarka Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Arazi Hasab Rasad Raqba. This land was so created during consolidation for the Gram Panchayat and for other common purposes of the village in accordance with the statutory mandate of Section 18(c) and Section 23-A of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as `the Consolidation Act'). The learned Single Judge while taking into consideration the nature of the land and the provisions of Sections 18(c), 23-A of the Consolidation Act, Rule 16(ii) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949 and Section 2(g)(6) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Common Lands Act') , has held that such land vests in the Gram Panchayat for the purpose of management and control, and may by virtue of Section 2(g)(6) of the Common Lands Act be treated as Shamilat Deh. The learned Single Judge further held that if the appellants have the grouse that this land was never reserved or used for common purposes of the village and the same does not vest in the Gram Panchayat under the provisions of Section 2(g)(6) of the Common Lands Act, then the appellants have an effective remedy to file a title suit under Section 13(A) of the Common Lands Act before the Collector, who has been empowered under the said Act to adjudicate on that aspect. Since the appellants have not availed the said remedy and directly filed the writ petition in the year 2010 challenging the mutation sanctioned LPA No.446 of 2011 (O&M) -3- in the year 2001 in favour of the Gram Panchayat, the learned Single Judge has relegated the appellants to their remedy by filing a petition under Section 13(A) of the Common Lands Act. We do not find any illegality in the said order. In our opinion, whether a particular land was reserved and used for common purposes of the village, may be a question of fact which can only be determined by the competent authority on the basis of the evidence led by the parties. In the writ petition, the said question cannot be gone into. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly relegated the appellants to the remedy available to them under Section 13(A) of the Common Lands Act. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE March 14, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) vkg JUDGE