LETTERS PARENT APPEAL NO. 144 OF 2010(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: November 16, 2010. Parties Name Gram Panchayat Kakkarwal ...APPELLANT. VERSUS State of Punjab and another ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih. PRESENT: Mr. Jasbir Rattan, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. S.D.Sharma, Sr. Adv., with Ms. Bindu Goel, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral) JUDGMENT CM No. 384 of 2010: In view of reasoning given in the application, delay in refiling the appeal is condoned. LPA No. 144 of 2010: This appeal has been filed against an order dated April 15, 2009, passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing CWP No. 17381 of LETTERS PARENT APPEAL NO. 144 OF 2010(O&M) -2- 2007, filed by the petitioner. Heard counsel for the parties. It is apparent from the records that vide order dated January 18, 1995, the Additional Director, Consolidation, Punjab, allowed application, filed by respondent No. 2, allotting him the land in dispute in lieu of deficiency caused to him, at the time of implementation of the repartition. It appears that the above said order was challenged by the petitioner – Gram Panchayat before this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 10411 of 1995, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on July 21, 1995. That order has become final. Thereafter on change of the members of the Gram Panchayat, the petitioner initiated a litigation to get that land, by filing an application under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands ( Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short the Act) on September 10, 2004. Its application was allowed by the Collector vide order dated May 19, 2005, and it (the petitioner- Gram Panchayat) was held owner of the land in dispute. Concluding part of the order reads thus: “On perusal of above petition, reply, statements, evidence, arguments and record, the Court is reached on the conclusion that according to Ex. P-3 owner of the land in dispute is Nagar Panchayat Deh Haza and in the column of cultivation, the entry is Makbuja Malkan. The respondent has come into possession of the land in dispute on the basis of the order dated 18.1.1995 of Additional Director, Consolidation, but Gram Panchayat had been giving on lease some part of the land in dispute and income generated had been used for common purposes of the LETTERS PARENT APPEAL NO. 144 OF 2010(O&M) -3- village, year 1996 AIR (S.C.) page 2187, 1997(1) PLJ 268 (S.C.) only Collector can decide the ownership of shamlat land under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. This way according to 2000(2) PLJ 335, the Collector can decide that whether the land is ownership of Gram Panchayat or of somebody else. So respondent has failed to prove his possession continuously since 26 January 1950. So the petition of the petitioner is accepted and Gram Panchayat Kakkarwal is declared owner of the land in dispute.” Nothing was said as to how order, passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation, mentioned above, was wrong. Respondent No. 2 went in appeal, which was allowed by the Commissioner vide order dated August 23, 2006, wherein by relying upon the order, passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation, on January 18, 1995, it was opined that the land already stood allotted in favour of respondent No.2. Order has become final after dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court on July 21, 1995. It was held that on account of that, Gram Panchayat cannot be declared as owner of the land in dispute. It was further observed as under: “ After hearing the arguments of both the parties and minutely gone through the record, I have reached the conclusion that vide order dated 18.01.1995 passed u/S 42 of the Consolidation Act of 1948 the land in dispute has been allotted in favour of the appellant to make up the deficiency good, caused to him LETTERS PARENT APPEAL NO. 144 OF 2010(O&M) -4- during the consolidation proceedings by the Additional Director Consolidation and the order dated 18.01.1995 challenged in the Hon'ble High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 10411 of 1995 and vide order dated 21.07.1995 the order dated 18.01.1995 passed by the Additional Director Consolidation upheld and writ petition was dismissed. So, this appeal is accepted because this Court or lower Court is not competent, to reopen the case finally decided by Hon'ble High Court. Gram Panchayat has also concealed the material fact at the time of filing the petition regarding filing the writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court. Therefore, the appeal is accepted and the order dated 19.05.2005 is set aside.” The petitioner then filed Civil Writ Petition No. 17381 of 2007, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned order. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the impugned order is perfectly justified. Before the authorities below and also in the writ petition, by making reference to the consolidation record, it is no where averred that there was no deficiency with respondent No. 2, which needs to be made good, as has been done vide order dated January 18, 1995. Even before us, no reference has been made to any document to dispute the above said facts. The order, passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation, after passing of the order by this Court on July 21, 1995, has become final. It was not open to the authorities under the Act to declare the Gram Panchayat as owner of the land unless and until the order, passed by the Consolidation authorities is set aside. Otherwise also, application, filed LETTERS PARENT APPEAL NO. 144 OF 2010(O&M) -5- by the appellant Gram Panchayat was time-barred. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. In view of above order, other applications in this appeal have become infructuous and are disposed of as such. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE November 16, 2010. DKC