CWP No. 3768 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of decision: 21.12.2009 ( i ) CWP No.3768 of 2009 Harpal Singh and others ... Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents Present: Mr.D.S.Patwalia, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr.A.J.Jatana, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr.J.R.Mittal, Sr.Advocate, with Mr.Kashmir Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ( ii ) CWP No.14232 of 2009 Sawinder Singh and others ... Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents Present: Mr.Arun Jain, Sr.Advocate, with Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr.A.J.Jatana, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr.B.S.Jaswal Advocate, for respondent No.4. .... CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of CWP No.3768 of 2009, wherein the land in dispute is 100 kanals 1 marla allegedly purchased by the petitioners in the year 1998, and CWP No.14232 of 2009 in respect land measuring 132 CWP No. 3768 of 2009 2 kanals 2 marlas, again purchased by the petitioners in the year 1998. In the first petition, challenge is to an order passed by the authorities under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Land (Regulations) Act, 1961 (for short `the Act'), wherein in the second writ petition, challenge is to the order passed under Section 11 of the aforesaid Act. Since the issue raised in both the writ petitions is substantially same in respect of title of land, both the writ petitions are taken up for hearing together. The claim of the petitioners is based on the Civil Court judgment and decree dated 8.1.1990, wherein the plaintiffs therein were declared to be the owners of the land measuring 231 kanals 19 marlas. Appeal against the said judgment and decree was dismissed on 23.11.1993. The petitioners are purchasers from the plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit. The petitioners rely upon the judgment dated 22.8.2008, whereby suit of the Panchayat challenging the sale deeds allegedly executed in favour of the present petitioners was dismissed. Petitioners in CWP No.3768 of 2009 also relied upon a judgment in a suit for declaration filed by the petitioners against the Panchayat claiming the ownership over the suit property purchased by them vide sale deeds dated 13.7.1998. Arguments raised by Mr. Arun Jain, Sr. Advocate, appearing in CWP No.14323 of 2009 and Mr.D.S.Patwalia, Advocate, appearing in CWP No.3768 of 2009, is common, i.e., the judgment of Civil Court having declared rights of the petitioners, is binding on the Panchayat and, therefore, the Panchayat cannot seek possession from the petitioners by taking recourse of the Act. It is also contended that while passing the impugned orders, the authorities have relied upon Section 42-A of the East Punjab CWP No. 3768 of 2009 3 Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short `1948 Act'). It is contended that the vires of Section 42-A of the 1948 Act are subject matter of challenge in number of writ petitions. Therefore, the present writ petitions should be heard along with the aforesaid writ petitions. Civil Court judgment and decree dated 8.1.1990 as affirmed on 23.11.1993 and that of 15.9.2004 and 22.8.2007, on which learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon, are not relevant, as such judgments of the Courts are without jurisdiction. The question is whether the land in dispute is shamlat deh and vests with the Panchayat. Such question can exclusively be determined by the authorities in terms of Section 13 of the Act. Decision of the Civil Court deciding such question indirectly would not operate as res judicata as the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide such question of title. Therefore, findings recorded by the Civil Court in respect of the ownership of the petitioners are the findings of a Court without jurisdiction. Though the authorities under the Act have referred to Section 42-A of the 1948 Act, but the possession is being claimed from the petitioners on the ground that the land vests with the Panchayat. Petitioners are relying upon the purchase made in the year 1998. Even if sale in favour of the petitioners is valid, that will not make the petitioners owners of the property as the vendors of the petitioners are required to prove that they have title over the suit property. In the absence of findings of title over the suit property in favour of the vendors of the present petitioners by the competent Court, i.e., the authorities under the Act, the petitioners cannot rely upon the findings of the Civil Court to assert that they are the owners of CWP No. 3768 of 2009 4 the suit land. It may be noticed that in the order impugned in CWP No.3768 of 2009, a finding has been returned on the basis of the statement of Lakhbir Singh, Sarpanch, that Zumla Mushtarka Malkan land of the Gram Panchayat was being auctioned for different periods and the land was auctioned to Gulab Singh for the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000. Thus, possession of the petitioners is unauthorised. The petitioners are successors in interest of Gulab Singh. In the order, subject matter of challenge in CWP No. 14232 of 2009, a finding has been returned that the petitioners have not produced any proof/evidence that they are holding the possession well before 26.1.1950, which fact alone could entitle the petitioners to retain the possession under the provisions of the Act. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. ( HEMANT GUPTA ) JUDGE 21.12.2009 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE