CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5483 OF 2007 :{ 1 } IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 2 ,2009 Jai Pal .....Petitioner VERSUS The Gram Panchayat, Rohat, District Sonepat 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. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.5483 of 2007 (Jai Pal Vs. The Gram Panchayat, Rohat, District Sonepat and others) and 5496 of 2007 (Sanjay Kumar Vs. The Gram Panchayat, Rohat, District Sonepat and others). The facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No.5483 of 2007. The petitioner claiming himself to be the owner in possession of an agricultural land in revenue estate of village Rohat, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5483 OF 2007 :{ 2 } Tehsil and District Sonepat since the time of his ancestors He has a grievance against the order dated 14.6.1996 passed by Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Sonepat mutating the entire Shamlat Musterka Land in the revenue estate of the village in the name of Panchayat. Petitioner has further urged that this was done without any notice to the effected parties including the petitioner. The petitioner filed a suit under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act before Collector, which was allowed. The appeal filed by respondent-Gram Panchayat before the Commissioner was also dismissed. The Financial Commissioner, however, accepted the revision filed by the respondent-Gram Panchayat, which is impugned by the petitioner through present writ petition. While allowing the revision petition of the Gram Panchayat, the Financial Commissioner has observed that the petitioner did not produce any document before the lower courts to prove that he was the Khewatdar of the village and had share in Musterka Malkan prior to 1950. Financial Commissioner has also noticed that there was no proof that the petitioner was in continuous cultivating possession of the land in question since 1950. Reference is made to the jamabandi for the year 1945-46 to observe that there is no indication that the land in question has been in cultivating possession of the petitioner. The Financial Commissioner also noticed that the onus of proof was on the petitioner not only to show that he was in cultivating possession in accordance with his share since 1950 and also to prove that the land was not reserved for common purposes during consolidation. The Financial Commissioner also found that the courts below had erred in relying upon CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5483 OF 2007 :{ 3 } jamabandies for the year 1981 onwards. It is observed that as per the scheme of consolidation, the land kept as Musterka Malkan has been reserved for common purposes. He found that the land reserved for common purpose falls within the ambit of Shamlat Deh whether or not it is used for the said purpose. Financial Commissioner has also observed that the Collector did not return any finding that the land in question was bachat land, whereas the Commissioner held so without there being any evidence on record. He accordingly set-aside the order passed by the lower court. While issuing notice of motion, reference was made to a document, Annexure A-1, which was subsequently placed on record by the petitioner by moving C.M. No.7028 of 2007. The counsel for the petitioner had then submitted on the basis of this document that the land in dispute was not reserved for any common purpose during consolidation proceedings. The plea also was that he is one of the co-sharer in Jumla Musterka Malkan and the land in dispute was under his possession not more than his share in the Jumla Musterka. Respondent-Gram Panchayat as well as official respondents have filed written statements. The stand taken is that petitioner is in an unauthorised possession of land measuring 5 kanals 13 marlas, which vests in Gram Panchayat as shamlat deh. It is also pointed out that application filed by the petitioner under Section 13-A of the Act has now been dismissed by the Financial Commissioner on the ground that there is no evidence on record to show the land in question was deducted by way of pro-rata cut from holdings of the petitioner. The petitioner even could not prove that he is the Khewatdar. It is pointed out that the petitioner could not show CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5483 OF 2007 :{ 4 } that on the relevant date, i.e., 9.1.1954, the land in question did not vest in the Gram Panchayat as shamlat deh under Section 2(g) of the Act. The counsel for the respondent would submit that Collector and Commissioner had illegally held that the land did not vest in the Gram Panchayat solely on the basis of jamabandies for the year 1981 onwards, which has rightly been interfered with by the Financial Commissioner. It is also pleaded that the declaration sought by the petitioner that he is owner in possession of specific field numbers otherwise cannot be allowed as the land in question is joint land. It is, thus, stated that the suit itself filed by the petitioner was not maintainable. Though the Collector and the Commissioner have held that in view of the entries in the revenue record, petitioner was the owner of the land and the Gram Panchayat had not proved its title in regard to the land in dispute, yet the Financial Commissioner has come to a different finding. It was pleaded before the Financial Commissioner that the Collector and Commissioner have relied upon jamabandies for the year 1980-81, which were produced by the petitioner and not on any entry prior thereto. The plea is that to determine the status, relevant date is 9.1.1954 and the petitioner had failed to produce any evidence or document to prove his possession or share in the land in dispute on the said date. It is also noticed that the petitioner has failed to produce any document to show that the land was after pro-rata cut. He also could not show that he was Khewatdar of the village. As per the consolidation scheme, the land was reserved for common purposes. Such land reserved for common purposes, even if not utilised would vest in Gram Panchayat as per CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5483 OF 2007 :{ 5 } the ratio of law laid down in full Bench decision of Jai Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2003(2) RCR (Civil) 578. This is so contended by the counsel for the respondent-Panchayat before me. Counsel for the Panchayat would also point out that in the consolidation scheme, there is a mention of 108 acres of land reserved for common purposes, but details of khasra numbers have not been mentioned, which would show that land recorded as “Musterka Malkan” is reserved for common purposes. On the other hand, the counsel for the petitioner would submit that land in question is a bachat land and was not reserved for any common purpose in the village and, therefore, it does not fall within the ambit of Section 2(g)(6) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act. Petitioner was stated to be Khewatdar of the village and in possession of the land in question as per his share. Before the Financial Commissioner, reference was also made to the jamabandi for the year 1945-46 to say that the petitioner was Khewatdar. The Financial Commissioner, however, found that this jamabandi did not indicate that the land in question was in cultivating possession of the petitioner. He also observed that the petitioner did not produce any record or document to show that he was Khewatdar of the village prior to 1950. Reference is also made to the consolidation scheme where the land kept as Musterka Malkan was reserved for common purposes. The reliance on jamabandies for the year 1981 onwards would not serve the case of the petitioner as the relevant date for the purpose of definition of Shamlat is required to be determined on 9.1.1954. In this regard, the counsel for the respondents relied on Har Nand alias Hanoo Vs. The CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5483 OF 2007 :{ 6 } Commissioner, Ambala Division and others, 1971 PLJ 539. It is held in this case that the definition in Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, has to be read into the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953, by reason of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 3 thereof and the relevant date for determination of the character of the land with reference to Section 2(g) is 9.1.1954. Reference is also made to the finding returned in Jai Singh's case (supra), where it is observed that all such lands, which have been, as per the consolidation scheme, reserved for common purposes, whether utilised or not, shall vest with the State Government or the Gram Panchayat, as the case may be, even though in the column of ownership the entries may be Jumla Mustarka Malkans Wa Digar Haqdaran Hasab Rasad Arazi Khewat etc. The counsel for the respondent appears justified in his submission that the land in this case was reserved for common purposes. In view of the above noted observations made by the Full Bench, this land reserved for common purpose, even if not utilised would vest in the Government or the Gram Panchayat. The reliance merely on the entry of Musterka Malkan etc., thus, would not come to the rescue to the cause of the petitioner. In this view of the matter and there being lack of evidence to substantiate the pleas raised by the petitioner, I am not inclined to interfere in the order passed by the Financial Commissioner. The writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed. April 2, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE