CWP No.7550 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.7550 of 1988 Date of decision: 17.03.2011 Malkiat Singh ..... Petitioner Versus The Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr.Sarwan Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr.N.S.Rapri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sunil Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA, J. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 24.09.1987, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. The Gram Panchayat, filed a petition under Section 5 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), before the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Balachaur, for eviction of the petitioner. The Gram Panchayat alleged that as the petitioner has encroached upon Shamlat Taur bearing No.751 he should be evicted. The petitioner filed a reply claiming that the site is not Shamilat Deh or Taur No.751, but his ancestral property. The Gram Panchayat placed reliance upon an Indraj Khasra Paimaish Missal Mashumla Bandobast of the year 1884 to support its plea that the land CWP No.7550 of 1988 -2- is a Shamilat Taur. The Collector dismissed the application by holding that a revenue entry recorded in the year 1884 cannot be pressed into service as consolidation of landholding has intervened and led to a change of khasra numbers. The Collector also held that as the land in dispute falls within the Lal Lakir, the report submitted by the Local Commissioner showing that Taur No.751 is Shamilat Deh cannot be accepted. Aggrieved by this order, the Gram Panchayat filed an appeal. The Commissioner accepted the appeal, set aside the order passed by the Collector and directed the petitioner's ejectment. Counsel for the petitioner submits that onus to establish that the land is Shamilat Deh rests upon the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat has not produced any evidence much less cogent evidence to establish its ownership. The “Indraj Khasra Paimaish Missal Mashumla Bandobast” of the year 1884 is not supported by any other revenue entry and therefore, cannot form the basis for a finding that the land belongs to the Gram Panchayat. In the absence of any clear and cogent evidence or entry of ownership, the Commissioner has committed an error in directing the petitioner's ejectment. It is also argued that as the land in dispute falls within the Lal Lakir and is Abadi Deh and it is excluded from Shamilat Deh by Section 2(g)(1) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Act), the writ petition should be allowed. Counsel for the respondents submits that as the land in dispute is a “Taur” used by residents of village for public purposes, the CWP No.7550 of 1988 -3- mere fact that it falls within the Lal Lakir, would make no difference to the fact that the land is Shamilat Deh. It is further submitted that as there is no entry to the contrary, the Commissioner rightly reversed the order passed by the Collector, held that the land belongs to the Gram Panchayat and directed the petitioner's ejectment. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner. A majority of revenue estates, were carved out in the latter part of the 19th Century during a process of settlement of land-holdings known as “Bandobast”. During settlement, rights of ownership, tenancy, mortgage, user, customary rights, nature of land, source of irrigation and area of land etc. were settled. The land was assigned Khewat, Khatauni and Khasra numbers. The land within Abadi was, however excluded from the process of settlement except to the extent of demarcating its boundary. The land within Abadi Deh was assigned a single Khewat number but different numbers were assigned to ponds and taurs etc. which have more often than not have remained unchanged. The land in dispute falls within the Lal Lakir. The Lal Lakir is an imaginary line drawn in red, on the map of a revenue estate to distinguish the Abadi Deh (residential area) of a village from its agricultural land. For some strange reason, Abadi Deh is not divided into separate Khewats, Khataunis and Khasra numbers or rectangle numbers. CWP No.7550 of 1988 -4- Section 2(g)(1) of the 1961 Act, excludes Abadi Deh from the definition of Shamilat Deh but Section 2(g)(4) of the Act provides that lands used or reserved for the benefit of village community including streets, lanes, playgrounds, schools, drinking wells or ponds situated within the “abadi deh” or “gorah deh” shall be shamilat deh. A conjoint reading of Sections 2(g)(1) and 4 of the Act clearly establishes that lands used or reserved for benefit of village community including streets, lanes playgrounds, schools, drinking wells or ponds situated within the “abadi deh”shall be Shamilat Deh. A taur is land which is recorded and used for the common purposes of collecting fire wood etc. and is therefore used for common purposes of the residents of a village. The fact that it falls within the Abadi Deh is irrelevant in view of Section 2(g)(4) of the Act. The Collector rejected the entry recorded during consolidation by holding that the Gram Panchayat should have produced recent jambandis, oblivious of the fact that land situated within Abadi Deh is not subjected to consolidation. Furthermore, the mere change of numbers does not change the nature of the land. The onus to establish his plea that the land is owned by the petitioner lay upon the petitioner. The petitioner has not produced any evidence to establish his ownership or his right to use the land. The petitioner in my considered opinion, has no right whether in fact or in law to remain in possession of land that vests in the Gram Panchayat. The Commissioner therefore, rightly reversed the order passed by the Collector and CWP No.7550 of 1988 -5- directed the petitioner's ejectment. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed but with no order as to costs. 17.03.2011 [ RAJIVE BHALLA ] shamsher JUDGE