IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 3694 of 1988 Date of Decision : September 13, 2010. Jasbir ...... Petitioner Versus Commissioner Ambala Division, Ambala, and others ...... Respondents C.W.P. No. 3695 of 1988 Date of Decision : September 13, 2010. Ram Chander ...... Petitioner Versus Commissioner Ambala Division, Ambala, and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH. Present:- None for the petitioners. Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Addl. A.G. Haryana, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. S.P. Chahar, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). By this Order, I propose to dispose of two writ petitions, i.e., CWP No.3694 of 1988 Jasbir Versus Commissioner Ambala Division, Ambala, and others, and CWP No. 3695 of 1988 Ram Chander Versus Commissioner Ambala Division, Ambala and others, wherein challenge has been made to Order dated 25.06.1987 (Annexure-P-3/T), vide which two revision petitions of the Gram Panchayat/respondent No. 4, had been allowed by the Commissioner Ambala Division, holding therein that the Order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Rohtak, converting the application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), into a title suit under Section 13 of the said Act, is unjustified. C.W.P. No. 3694 of 1988 etc. -2- It is the contention of the petitioners in the writ petitions that the application, which was preferred by the Gram Panchayat/respondent No. 4, under Section 7 of the Act for ejectment of the petitioners on the ground that they are in unauthorised possession, is not maintainable as it is not the owner of the land and had, thus, laid challenge to the title of the Gram Panchayat. They had claimed that they are owners of the land in dispute and further that the land does not fall within the definition of Shamlat Deh as provided under Section 2 (g) of the Act. Since the question of title of the property was involved in the case, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Rohtak, had rightly converted the application under Section 7 of the Act preferred by the Gram Panchayat into one under Section 13 of the Act as the suit for determining the title of the land. The application preferred by the Gram Panchayat was dismissed on the ground that the petitioners were the owner in possession of the land and the Gram Panchayat did not have the title to the land in question as the Gram Panchayat failed to prove before the Court that the land in question was being used for common purposes. It has further been pleaded that an Appeal was preferred against the said Order by the Gram Panchayat before the Collector, Rohtak, who vide Order dated 05.05.1986, dismissed the same. The revision petition preferred by the Gram Panchayat, was allowed by the Commissioner, Amabla Division, vide Order dated 25.06.1987 (Annexure- P-3/T). Counsel for respondents contend that when the entry in the revenue record, i.e., Jamabandi for the year 1975-76, was made, Gram Panchayat has been shown as the owner of the land because it is Shamlat Deh land, application under Section 7 of the Act was maintainable. The entry clearly shows the Gram Panchayat to be the owner of the land in dispute and, therefore, the title of the land was not in dispute. Merely C.W.P. No. 3694 of 1988 etc. -3- because the land was not being used for common purposes, would not be enough to hold that the land would not fall within the definition of Shamlat Deh and the Gram Panchayat was fully justified in seeking ejectment of the petitioners. He on this basis prays that the writ petitions be dismissed and the impugned Order dated 25.06.1987 (Annexure-P-3/T) be upheld. I have gone through the record of the case and have heard counsel for respondent No. 4-Gram Panchayat. A perusal of the record indicates that an application under Section 7 of the Act was preferred by the Gram Panchayat-respondent No. 4 for ejectment of the petitioners on the ground that they are unauthorised occupants of the Panchayat’s land. The claim was based on the basis of mutation sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat,and the Jamabandi for the year 1975-76 showing the Gram Panchayat to be the owner of the land in dispute. The petitioners contested the claim of the Gram Panchayat with regard to ownership of the land in dispute as it was merely based on the mutation which did not confer any right of ownership nor did the land belongs to the Gram Panchayat. As it was merely reflected in the revenue record, would not mean that the Gram Panchayat is owner of the land in dispute and it would fall within the definition of Shamlat Deh. It was a specific stand of the petitioners that the land in dispute was not being used for common purposes as it has although been shown as “Malik Shamlat Pana Khas Hasab Rasad Arazi Khewat Makbooza Malkan” in Jamabandi for the year 1963-64 and the petitioners were in possession of the land. As per Section 2(g)(3) of the Act, unless the said land is not used for common purposes, it would not fall within the definition of Shamlat Deh. That being so, the title of the land and the nature of the land itself was in dispute. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Rohtak, was, thus, justified in converting the application preferred by C.W.P. No. 3694 of 1988 etc. -4- the Gram Panchayat under Section 7 of the Act into one as a title of suit under Section 13 of the Act. Accordingly, the Court had proceeded to decide the same after framing the issues and consideration of the evidence led by the parties in this regard. It would not be out of way to mention here that the Order, vide which the application under Section 7 of the Act preferred by the Gram Panchayat/respondent No. 4, was converted into one under Section 13 of the Act, has not been challenged by the Gram Panchayat before any competent Court, the said Order had attained finality nor was it the case of the Gram Panchayat before the appellate Authority. That being so, the Order passed by the Revisional Court, i.e., Commissioner Ambala Division, dated 25.06.1987 (Annexure-P-3/T), cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. In view of the above, the writ petitions are allowed. The parties are directed to appear before the Commissioner Rohtak Division, (as now the Division has its own Commissioner at Rohtak, as informed by counsel for respondent No. 4-Gram Panchayat), on 13.10.2010, to decide the cases treating the application to be one under Section 13 of the Act. Since, none has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioners, the Commissioner shall effect service upon the petitioners, if they fail to appear on the abovementioned date. Endeavour be made by the Commissioner to decide the revision petitions preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE September 13, 2010. sjks.