LETTERS PARENT APPEAL NO. 666 OF 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: May 04 , 2011. Parties Name Gram Panchayat Jalalpur ...APPELLANT. VERSUS Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg PRESENT: Mr. N.P.S. Mann, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Avnish Mittal, Adv., for respondent No. 3. Jasbir Singh, J. (oral) JUDGMENT This order will dispose of four Letters Patent Appeals bearing No. 666 to 669, all of the year 2011, involving similar questions of law and facts. For facility of dictating judgment, facts are being taken from LPA No. 666 of 2011. This appeal has been filed against judgment, passed by the learned Single Judge on February 9, 2011, dismissing Civil Writ Petition No. 11941 of 2006, filed by the appellant. LETTERS PARENT APPEAL NO. 666 OF 2011 (O&M) -2- Heard. As per facts on record, land in dispute was shown as “Shamlat Deh Hasab Hisas Mundarza Shijra Rasab” in jamabandi for the year 1952- 53. A mutation was sanctioned, transferring this land, in favour of the Gram Panchayat on August 25, 1956 and thereafter it continued to be shown as such throughout. On February 5, 2003, respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Regulation Act, 1961 (in short the Act) claiming ownership of the land in dispute, on a ground that the land was not Shamlat Deh as alleged. It was partitioned amongst the share-holders before the year 1953 and thereafter it remained in their cultivating possession till the date of filing of that application. Notice was sent to the appellant and after putting in appearance, claim of respondent No. 3 was opposed on a ground that the land in dispute is the ownership of the Gram Panchayat and is being used for the common purposes of the village. It was further stated that at times, the Gram Panchayat had released this land to various individuals for cultivation. However, to support that assertion, no evidence was produced in Court except oral statement of the then Sarpanch. The Collector vide order dated April 6, 2004, allowed an application filed by respondent No. 3 by observing as under: “I have heard both the counsels at length and perused the documents on file. The Gram Panchyat has failed to produce any record of auction. The best evidence has been withheld by LETTERS PARENT APPEAL NO. 666 OF 2011 (O&M) -3- the Gram Panchayat and the adverse influence is drawn against it. Further the Sarpanch has suffered statement that the Panchayat used to give this land for cultivation purposes which means that the land is not of Banjar nature and the same is cultivable land. It gives support to the case of the petitioner that he is cultivating the land in dispute. The Gram Panchayat has failed to prove its case and could not produce any record on file. None of the witnesses other than the Sarpanch has stepped into the witness box on behalf of the Gram Panchayat. The arguments made by the learned counsel for the respondent that the land stood mutated in the name of Gram Panchayat and it was never challenged by the petitioner has no force. In view of settled legal proposition that the mutation does not confer any title. Moreover, the wrong revenue entries did not per see oblige person to file suit unless and until there is actual threat to his right. In the present case, the petitioner remained in cultivating possession of the land in dispute which was never disturbed by the respondent, therefore, the wrong revenue entries does not effect the right of the petitioner. In view of my these observations, the petitioner has successfully established his case qua the property in dispute and respondent has miserably failed to rebut the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, the petition is accepted with findings that the petitioner is owner of the land fully detailed in the head note of the petition and the revenue entries are liable to be LETTERS PARENT APPEAL NO. 666 OF 2011 (O&M) -4- corrected accordingly.” Appellant went in appeal and on August 12, 2005, the same was allowed by passing the following order: “Respondent ex-parte. Appeal accepted. 12.8.2005 Sd/Sarvjit Singh, Commissioner.” Respondent No. 3 immediately thereafter filed an application to recall the above said ex parte order and on August 19, 2005, following order was passed by the Commissioner: “Adjourned to 16.9.2005 for arguments. Restored with the consent of appellant.” Thereafter, the Commissioner vide order dated June 14, 2006, dismissed an appeal filed by the appellant Gram Panchayat. The Commissioner noted that the Gram Panchayat has failed to prove that the land in dispute was ever leased out to any person in the village. Except bald statement made by the Sarpanch, no documentary evidence was brought on record by the Gram Panchayat to prove that fact. It was rightly held by the Commissioner that the mutation, entered in favour of the Gram Panchayat on August 26, 1956, shall not confer any title on the Gram Panchayat. By making reference to the documentary evidence on record (Jamabandis etc.), it was specifically held that there was no proof that the land was ever used for common purposes of the village. Above orders were challenged by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 11941 of 2006, which was dismissed vide the LETTERS PARENT APPEAL NO. 666 OF 2011 (O&M) -5- order impugned in this appeal. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that once the Commissioner has allowed an appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat vide order dated August 12, 2005, it was not open to the Commissioner to review the same. We feel that this argument has very rightly been rejected by the learned Single Judge by noting that an order dated August 12, 2005, was an ex parte order, and the appeal was not accepted by discussing merits of the dispute between the parties. It has also come on record that on an application, filed by respondent No. 3, the appeal was restored with consent of both the parties. There is nothing on record to show that this fact was wrongly noted by the Commissioner in his order dated August 19, 2005. Otherwise also, setting aside of an ex parte order does not amount to review. The Commissioner is competent to recall an ex parte order if sufficient ground is made out to do the same. So far as merits of the case are concerned, the learned Single Judge to decline relief to the appellant has observed as under: “On merits, Order Annexure P-8 has been passed on the premise that the private respondent before this Court was found in cultivating possession before 1950; is a permanent resident of the village; had the possession of land for more than 12 years prior to commencement of the Act; consolidation took place in the village in 1961 and lands were distributed amongst khewatdars before 1950; khewatdars remained in possession of the land according to their share; land was never used for LETTERS PARENT APPEAL NO. 666 OF 2011 (O&M) -6- common purposes of the village, rather the respondent developed the land and made it cultivable; Collector came to the conclusion that land is covered under Section 2(g) of the Act, and therefore, falls in exception (iii) to Section 2(g) of the Act. On the other hand, the Gram Panchayat failed to produce any record in regard to auction of land so as to indicate its possession over the land. Land has never been used for common purposes of the village community and, therefore, it does not fall within the definition of Shamilat Deh. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not referred, during arguments, to any document or material to establish that the land was ever utilised for common purposes.” At the time of arguments before us also, no document has been shown to this Court that the land in dispute was ever used for common purposes of the village community and further that it was Shamlat Deh land as per provisions of Section 2(g) of the Act. Order passed by the learned Single Judge is perfectly justified. Counsel for the appellant has failed to show any legal infirmity in the same , which may necessitate any interference by this Court. Dismissed. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge May 04, 2011. DKC LETTERS PARENT APPEAL NO. 666 OF 2011 (O&M) -7-