Civil Writ Petition No. 19928 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.19928 of 2008 Date of decision: 21.4.2009 Smt. Giano Devi and others ...petitioners Versus Commissioner, Hisar Division, and others ...respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana for the State. Mr. Sarjit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for respondent No.4. ***** RANJIT SINGH J. Application filed by the Gram Panchayat for ejectment of the petitioners was rejected in the year 1995. Subsequently, the case was remanded back to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade in the year 1997. The Assistant Collector ordered the ejectment of the petitioners on 8.2.1999. Appeal filed against this order was dismissed. Commissioner, Ambala Division, however, again remanded the case back to the Assistant Collector on 5.3.2002 to specifically determine as to what is the share of the petitioners in shamlat. Application filed by the Gram Panchayat accordingly was then dismissed on 7.4.2005. The Gram Panchayat appealed against the same, which was allowed and the case was again remanded back to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade. Still the prayer made by Civil Writ Petition No. 19928 of 2008 2 the Gram Panchayat was rejected on 29.9.2006. The Collector and the Commissioner, however, took a view that the petitioners were not able to prove that they have any proprietory or legal right over the land in dispute. The prayer for ejectment accordingly was allowed. The petitioners have impugned the order passed by the Collector and the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar. The Collector while allowing the appeal of the Gram Panchayat has noticed that the petitioners was not able to establish that he had a share in the shamlat land nor could he prove that during consolidation any land was deducted from the land holdings of the petitioners on pro rata basis and included in the shamlat deh land. The Collector, accordingly, found that the petitioners failed to prove any proprietory or legal right over the land in dispute. It is further observed that the petitioners also failed to prove the type of share holding in the shamlat deh land. The land in dispute was noticed to be a part of shamlat land prior to scheme of consolidation and thus it was observed that it vested in the Gram Panchayat. The petitioners were so found in unauthorised possession of land and their eviction ordered. The Commissioner while rejecting the revision observed that it was incumbent on the petitioners to give details of their ownership alongwith jamabandies and khasra numbers. Commissioner further viewed that it was necessary to work out the ratio of their share in the title land of the village. This was not done. Such record does not find a mention in the order nor any ratio was worked out. While dismissing the revision, the Commissioner further noticed that the appellant got number of opportunities to produce the Civil Writ Petition No. 19928 of 2008 3 record but did not produce the same. The possession of the petitioners, was thus found to have been accepted without the basis of any record. Challenging the finding returned by the Collector and the Commissioner, counsel for the petitioners would submit that he had placed before the Assistant Collector a record relating to jamabandies of the land, where the petitioners were shown in possession and ownership of the land. The petitioners have also placed on record the entries in the jamabandies changed on the basis of letter on the name of the Panchayat and Khatauni Pamiash Annexures P-10 to P-12 besides the oral evidence produced by him. Counsel for the respondents by referring to the definition of shamlat land, would contend that mere possession by the petitioner was not enough, but he was also required to establish that his share in the shamlat had been determined and he was in possession to the extent of his share after partition of the land. In this regard the counsel has referred to 2(g) (iii) of the Act. Counsel further contends that on the basis of partition, the petitioners were required to show that he was in possession prior to 26.1.1950. It was for the petitioners to establish that they had purchased the share in the shamlat land while purchasing the land in village. In this regard reliance is placed on the documents produced by the petitioners, like the jamabandies and Khatauni Pamaish. Since the names of the petitioners are reflected in the jamabandies the documents were required to be taken into consideration by the Collector and the Commissioner. On a pointed query, the counsel for the petitioners says that he does not wish to rely on any document Civil Writ Petition No. 19928 of 2008 4 other than those produced and placed before the Assistant Collector. These are the same documents which are now placed on record of the present writ petition. It seems that these documents have not been attended to by the Commissioner or the Collector who have observed that the petitioners have failed to prove any document in this regard. It would be, therefore, appropriate to remand this case back to the Commissioner to consider these documents, like jamabandies, Khatauni Pamaish etc. which were produced before the Assistant Collector and then determine if the petitioners were able to prove that they had a share in shamlat and that they were owning the same and in possession thereof on the relevant date. The Commissioner shall not give any opportunity to the petitioners to produce any other document on record while now reconsidering the case and would confine his consideration on the basis of documents already placed on record. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Commissioner on 14.5.2009. April 21, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE