C.W.P. No.2251 of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.2251 of 1990 Date of Decision: 19.11.2010 Nachhattar Singh ……Petitioner Versus The Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab and others ……Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI -.- Present: Mr. M.L. Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for respondent No.3. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) By this petition the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 20.01.1987 and 15.11.1989 on the ground that prior to the amendment in the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 the Gram Panchayat had no right to file an application for declaration of title under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common C.W.P. No.2251 of 1990 -2- Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for brevity “the Act”). Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in the matter of Gurnam Singh v. The District Development Officer (Collector), Patiala and another, reported in 1988 PLJ 497, wherein a Division Bench held as follows:- “8. After thorough consideration of the matter, we have come to the conclusion that the anomaly, could be removed, if at all, only by striking down the provisions of Section 11 being discriminatory but as there is no challenge to the vires of the said section, it is not open to us to consider this matter in detail and express our opinion thereon. So we have no option but to leave the matter for Government to take necessary steps and remove the anomaly by proper amendment. 9. In view of our finding that the Panchayat has no right to take proceedings under Section 11 of the Act the last part of the order of the Collector wherein a right has been reserved that the Gram Panchayat, if so chooses, may again file application under the Act after getting the ownership question decided under Section 11 of the Act, is quashed. No costs.” Subsequent to that in the Civil Writ Petition bearing C.W.P. No.1786 of 1985 decided on 05.07.2010 a learned Single C.W.P. No.2251 of 1990 -3- Bench held as follows:- “In view of the above facts as the application filed by the Gram Panchayat was not maintainable on 16.06.1981, the impugned orders are without jurisdiction. The writ petition is therefore, allowed, the orders dated 09.02.1983 and 21.12.1984 passed by the Collector (District Development & Panchayat Officer), Patiala and the Joint Director Panchayats (Exercising the powers of Commissioner), Chandigarh, are set aside but with liberty to the Gram Panchayat to file a fresh petition under Section 11 of the Act.” Learned Counsel for respondent No.3 is not in a position to cite any contrary judgment. Consequently, this petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned orders dated 20.01.1987 and 15.11.1989 are liable to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. Since the Act has been amended respondent No.3 shall now be at liberty to file a petition under Section 11 of the amended Act for declaration and for eviction of the petitioner. ( AJAY TEWARI ) November 19, 2010 JUDGE ashish