CWP No.8826 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.8826 of 2010 Date of decision:06.08.2010 Kashmir Singh ...... Petitioner VERSUS The Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA. Present: Mr.R.S.Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA.J (Oral) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 05.06.2007 and 28.10.2009, passed by the Collector-cum-Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Patiala, and the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab, respectively. The petitioner filed an application under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for a declaration that land compromised in Khewat Khatauni No.289/516, Khasra Rect.No.66/1 (8-0), 10 (7-16) measuring 15 kanals and 16 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Gulzarpura @ Tharua, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala, belongs to the petitioner and does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat, filed a reply pleading that it is recorded as owner in possession, in the revenue record, and as the petitioner is recorded as a Chakotedar on payment of rent @ 375/- per killa, he cannot challenge the ownership of the Gram Panchayat. The Collector, CWP No.8826 of 2010 -2- thereafter, called upon parties to lead evidence. After parties led their respective evidence and addressed arguments, the Collector, dismissed the application, primarily on the ground that jamabandis for the years 1987-88, 1992-93, record the petitioner as a Chakotedar on payment of rent @.375/- per killa. The Collector, also held that the petitioner has failed to prove his continuous cultivating possession as per his share, prior to 26.01.1950. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the revenue record, clearly records that the petitioner is in possession of his share thereby rebutting the entries in the jamabandi recording the ownership of the Gram Panchayat. The jamabandi for the year 1950-51, records the possession of the petitioner, clearly proving that the petitioner is owner in possession of the land in dispute. It is further submitted that the land was “Banjar Kadim” but was made cultivable by the petitioner, prior to 26.01.1950. The petitioner is a proprietor in possession as per his shareholding and therefore, entitled to a declaration that the land in dispute does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. The last argument is that as the Collector, did not frame any issue, the impugned orders should be set aside and the matter should be remitted to the Collector, to decide the matter afresh after framing issues. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and express my inability to accede to the arguments addressed by counsel for the petitioner. It is true that a Collector, exercising powers under Section 11 of the Act, is required to frame issues, before calling upon parties to lead evidence. It is also true that where parties are alive to the issues and have led evidence for and against their case, an order can only be set aside on the ground of CWP No.8826 of 2010 -3- established prejudice. Reference in this regard may be made to the following judgments namely Kannan (dead) by LRs and others Vs. V.S. Pandurangam (dead) by LRs and others, AIR 2008 SC 951, Kashmir Singh and others Vs. Joint Development Commissioner (IRD), Punjab, Chandigarh and others, 2006(1) Local Acts Reporter 606, Thakur Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1995 PLJ 195 and Tika and others Vs. Ram Chander & others, 2003(3) PLR 631. The petitioner has lead evidence in support of his plea of ownership but has failed to plead or prove any prejudice to his cause for failure to frame issues. The arguments, relating to ownership and possession as a proprietor, must also fail on the grounds that the petitioner has failed to adduce any evidence to establish his status as a proprietor, any evidence to establish that the petitioner or his predecessors were in individual cultivating possession of their share of the “Shamilat” prior to 26.01.1950 and most significant of all the entries in the revenue record, recording the petitioner as a Chakotedar on payment of rent @ 375/- per killa. A tenant is estopped from asserting title, in opposition to the title of the true owner. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed. 06.08.2010 [RAJIVE BHALLA] shamsher JUDGE