CWP No.6181 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6181 of 1988 Date of decision:07.03.2011 Yakub and others ..... Petitioners Versus District Collector, Gurgaon and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Paramjit Batta, Addl.A.G., Haryana for respondents no.1 to 3. None for respondent no.4. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA, J.(ORAL) The petitioners impugn orders dated 18.12.1987 and 30.05.1988, passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Ferozepur Zirka and the District Collector, Gurgaon, respectively. The petitioners challenge orders of ejectment passed under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) (as applicable to the State of Haryana), on the plea that the land in dispute does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. Counsel for the petitioners submits that admittedly the land in dispute is Jumla Mushtarka Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Hasab Rasad Arazi Khewat (hereinafter referred to as Jumla Mushtarka Malkan). The land therefore, vests in the proprietors. It is further submitted that CWP No.6181 of 1988 -2- though the land is Jumla Mushtarka Malkan, it was never reserved for the Gram Panchayat or for the common purposes of the village and therefore, does not vest in the Gram Panchayat even for management and control. The petition filed by the Gram Panchayat for the petitioners ejectment was therefore, not maintainable. Counsel for the State of Haryana was requested, in the absence of any counsel for the Gram Panchayat to address arguments on behalf of the Gram Panchayat. Counsel for the State of Haryana submits that as the land is admittedly Jumla Mushtarka Malkan, it raises a presumption that it was reserved, during consolidation, for the Gram Panchayat and for common purposes of the village under Rule 16 (ii) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). It is also argued that in case the petitioners assert that the land was not so reserved, their remedy is to file a petition under Section 13(A) of the Act. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. The land in dispute is admittedly Jumla Mushtarka Malkan. The expression “Jumla Mushtarka Malkan” relates to land reserved for the Gram Panchayat and for common purposes of the village under Rule 16 (ii) of the Rules. The land so reserved vests in proprietors but its management and control vests in the Gram Panchayat. Section 2(g) (6) of the Act, introduced by Act no.9 of 1991 however provides that land described as Jumla Mushtarka Malkan will be Shamilat Deh. The CWP No.6181 of 1988 -3- vires of Section 2(g)(6) came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in Jai Singh and others Versus State of Haryana, 2003 (2), PLR 658. While affirming the vires of Section 2(g)(6) and the explanation appended thereto, their Lordships held that Section 2(g)(6) merely reaffirms the position as it existed under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 and the Rules framed thereunder i.e. the land vests in the proprietors as owners and in the Gram Panchayat for management and control. It was also held that in case any party asserts that the land was not reserved for the Gram Panchayat or for common purposes it may seek adjudication of this question before an appropriate forum. The petitioners have failed to place on record any material to establish that the land in dispute was not reserved for the Gram Panchayat or for common purposes. The petitioners have not referred to much less established any legal right that would entitle them to remain in possession. In the absence of any error of jurisdiction or of law in the impugned orders, the order directing the petitioners ejectment is affirmed and the writ petition is dismissed. However, in order to enable the petitioners to seek adjudication of the question of title, as raised, the orders of ejectment shall remain in abeyance for a period of two months, to enable the petitioners to file a petition under Section 13-A of the Act. This order shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the question of title that the petitioners may raise in CWP No.6181 of 1988 -4- proceedings under Section 13-A of the Act. No order as to costs. 07.03.2011 [ RAJIVE BHALLA ] shamsher JUDGE CWP No.6181 of 1988 -5- CWP No.6181 of 1988 -6-