IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 15042 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : 02.11.2011 Amrik Singh and others .... PETITIONERS Versus State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr. G.P.S. Bal, Advocate, for the petitioners. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The petitioners, who claim themselves to be the proprietors of village Raje Majra, Tehsil and District Roopnagar, have filed the instant petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 31.12.2010 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Commissioner, whereby the order dated 30.10.2002 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Collector, Rupnagar, decreeing the title suit, filed by Jasvir Singh (one of the proprietors) under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, has been set aside. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the impugned order. In this case, out of the total land measuring 1678 Kanal 1 CWP No. 15042 of 2011 -2- Marla, in the title suit, the proprietors of the village claimed 1431 Kanals 4 Marlas of land. As per the revenue record, i.e. jamabandis for the year 1943- 44, 1964-65, 1978-79, 1988-89 and 1998-99, produced before the authorities below, the land in dispute is recorded under the ownership of `Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Zar Khewat' and in possession of the `Maqbooja Malkan'. The Collector, while taking into consideration the entry of `Maqbooja Malkan' as the individual cultivating possession of the proprietors, and while further taking into consideration the statement made by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat that the proprietors are in possession of the aforesaid Shamlat Deh, had decreed the title suit. The Commissioner set aside the aforesaid order, while coming to the conclusion that the aforesaid revenue record produced by the petitioners in the case does not prove the individual cultivating possession of the petitioners over the disputed land on or before 26.1.1950. It has been further held that the petitioners did not produce any khasra girdawari or any other evidence showing their individual cultivating possession on the land in dispute on or before 26.1.1950. Hence, by recording the said finding of fact, title suit of the proprietors has been dismissed. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners was asked to show from the revenue record that the petitioners were in individual cultivating possession of the disputed land on or before 26.1.1950, in order to cover their case under Exception (viii) of Section 2 (g) (5) of the Act, which reads as under :- CWP No. 15042 of 2011 -3- “Shamilat deh does not include land which was shamilat deh, was assessed to land revenue and has been in the individual cultivating possession of co-sharers not being in excess of their respective shares in such shamilat deh or or before the 26th January, 1950.” Counsel for the petitioners has been unable to show any such evidence available on record. Further, the petitioners have also not produced any record of consolidation to connect the old khasra numbers with the new khasra numbers. Thus, we are of the opinion that the learned Commissioner has rightly set aside the order passed by the Collector. No merits. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE November 02, 2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) ndj JUDGE