CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.314 OF 2009 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: January 09, 2009 Nishan Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Chanchal K. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner claims that he was allotted land in 1947 in village Khera Daroli, which was Banjrakadim and he has made it fit for cultivation. He further claims that this land was kept for common purposes of the village and, thus, is a mushtarka malkan and is not a shamlat deh with which the Gram Panchayat would have any concern. His claim further is that the land in question is situated in village Khera Daroli, but Gram Panchayat of Dharam Singh Wala, in order to grab the same, has actively taken steps to have the Khasra CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.314 OF 2009 :{ 2 }: Girdawari entries changed in their name. A perusal of the petition further shows that Buta Singh, Member Panchayat, Village Dharam Singh Wala filed a petition under Sections 4,5 and 7 of the Punjab Public Premises Act for eviction of one Kirpal Singh (father of the petitioner), which was dismissed. Though the petitioner claims that the Court found that Kirpal Singh is in cultivating possession of the land, which was mushtarka malkan and not a shamlat deh but this is not the finding returned by Collector, Moga. In fact, Collector, Moga, found that jamabandi, Exhibit P-2, shows Gram Panchayat to be the owner of the land and Kirpal Singh is shown to be the garmarusi in possession of the land. Finding that the land is not public property, the petition filed by the Gram Panchayat was dismissed as being not maintainable and Gram Panchayat was given liberty to file any appropriate fresh petition in accordance with law. Thus, no advantage can accrue to the petitioner on this count. The petitioner also claims that Buta Singh was able to get khasra Girdawaries changed in the name of Gram Panchayat, which was contested by the petitioner. He further claims that though the cultivating possession of the land is conceded, yet by ignoring the settled position of law, the khasra girdawari has been changed in the name of the Gram Panchayat. The counsel submits that authorities have misconceivedly gone to decide the title of the land whereas for khasra girdawaries only possession was to be seen. He has accordingly impugned the orders passed by the authorities by way of present writ petition. The observation made by the authority is that the Gram CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.314 OF 2009 :{ 3 }: Panchayat is the owner of the land and the petitioner has failed to show that in what capacity he came in possession of the same. Since the law does not recognise the unauthorised possession of a person, the khasra girdawari entries in favour of the Gram Panchayat have been maintained and appeal against the same has been dismissed. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was also found to be devoid of merit as no illegality or infirmity could be pointed out in the finding returned by the Assistant Collector Grade I and the Collector or the Commissioner. Except for reiterating that the authorities were required to see possession for making entries in the khasra girdawari, which fact has not been considered, the counsel could not point out any legal infirmity, which would call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It can not be understood how Banjar Kadim land could be used for common purpose. Reference here may be made to the observations made in Nafe Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 1994 (3) RRR 518, that had described that Banjarkadim would be governed by the definition of shamlat deh. The facts can not be appreciated to come to a different conclusion while exercising writ jurisdiction. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in the impugned orders, especially so when there is no dispute that Gram Panchayat is owner of the land in question and the petitioner could not show his possession to be legal in any manner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. January 09, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.314 OF 2009 :{ 4 }: