Civil Writ Petition No.9358 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.9358 of 2010 Date of Decision:- December 14, 2011 Nazam Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Praveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Rishav Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr. Ashok Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ... Satish Kumar Mittal, J. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 26.4.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Collector, whereby on an application under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), filed by respondent No.5, the site in dispute was found to be a public passage and vests in the Gram Panchayat; as well as the order dated 1.11.2010 passed by Civil Writ Petition No.9358 of 2010 -2- the Commissioner, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order has also been dismissed. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned orders. In this case, the Collector after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties and opportunity to lead evidence, has recorded a finding of fact that the site in dispute is Rasta Sare-Aam, which is meant for use of common purposes and vests in the Gram Panchayat, while making the following observations:- “That after going through the aforesaid petition, written statement, evidence, arguments and going through record, this court has come to the conclusion that land in dispute is shamlat deh which vests in gram panchayat and gram panchayat is the only owner of this land. Respondent has no concern with the ownership of this land. The land which has been shown in red colour in site plan Ex.P-1 is the land of Rasta Sare-Aam, the land is meant for common purposes. The respondent has unauthorisedly occupied this land without order of any court. He has no right to block this land. From documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4, Mark A-1 to Mark-B also proves that the land in dispute bearing khasra No.985(493-15) is part and parcel of abadi which had been used as passage and part and parcel of passage thoroughfare. The respondent has not produced any evidence to rebut the aforesaid documents. Shri Bakshish Singh is also having no right to sell this land in dispute because the land in dispute is land for being used for common purposes which falls under definition of shamlat. The management and control of which is with gram panchayat. The evidence on file Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4 shows that as per Naksha Ex.P-1 the land adjoins on the Eastern side Sudesh Kumar 25 feet, on Western Civil Writ Petition No.9358 of 2010 -3- side Bakshish Singh 23 feet, North Rasta 12 feet and South road 12 feet, from which it is proved that the land shown in red colour is a passage only. Besides this the respondent has not produced any evidence from which it could be proved that the land in dispute was under ownership of Bakshish Singh. The gram panchayat is owner of the land in dispute which is being used for the common purpose of the village. The respondent No.1 having no concern with this land. Gram Panchayat is being directed that appropriate action be taken for evicting the land in dispute. The aforesaid finding recorded by the Collector has been affirmed in appeal by the Commissioner, while making the following observations:- “After going through the record file and the file of the appellant I have come to the conclusion that the appellant could not produce any document or any record of the revenue department either in this court or in the lower court which could prove his ownership. It is the duty of the purchaser before purchasing the land that he should check title of the land, but in this case the seller was not true owner of the land in dispute because the revenue record does not prove his ownership. The lower court has declared it as thoroughfare which is being used for common purpose. No private person has right to sell this land. Such lands are being controlled and administered by gram panchayat. No illegality has been found in orders of the court below.” A perusal of the aforesaid order clearly indicates that the petitioner did not lead any evidence to establish that the site in dispute was never used by the inhabitants as a passage and it was owned by Bakshish Singh from whom he had purchased the site in dispute vide registered sale Civil Writ Petition No.9358 of 2010 -4- deed. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the resolution dated 29.1.2004 passed by the Gram Panchayat, copy of which has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-5. This document was placed on record by the petitioner for the first time. We have perused this resolution and in our view this resolution does not support the case of the petitioner. Rather it goes against him. In this resolution, it has been mentioned that Gian Chand (respondent No.5 herein) had filed a complaint against petitioner Nazam Singh alleging therein that he is blocking the street by raising the construction. On the said complaint, petitioner Nazam Singh was restrained from raising the construction and blocking the street till he produces the proof of ownership with regard to the said land. It has been stated that thereupon Nazam Singh produced one sale deed. On this, Panchayat observed that if Nazam Singh is the owner, then he can get the permission for raising the construction of wall in the street. From this resolution, it establishes that the site in dispute was being used as a street and the petitioner was to establish his ownership or the ownership of the predecessor on the site in dispute. When the title suit was filed by respondent No.5, the petitioner did not establish his ownership or establish the ownership of his predecessor, from whom he had purchased the site in dispute. No evidence was led by the petitioner that the site in dispute was never used as a passage by the inhabitants of the village. On the other hand, respondent No.5 clrearly led evidence which establishes that the site in dispute was being used as a passage by the inhabitants of the village. A finding of fact has been recorded by both the authorities below on the basis Civil Writ Petition No.9358 of 2010 -5- of documentary evidence produced by respondent No.5. Therefore, merely because the petitioner had purchased the site in dispute from Bakshish Singh, that itself would not make him owner until and unless it is established that Bakshish Singh was also owner of the site in dispute and it was never used as a public passage by the residents of the village. Since there is no such material, therefore, in our view, the authorities under the Act have rightly come to the aforesaid conclusion, which, in our opinion, does not require in any interference. No merits. Dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE December 14, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) vkg JUDGE