CWP No.6360 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6360 of 2005 DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 Chanan Singh and others .....PETITIONERS Versus The State of Punjab and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Charanjit Singh Bakshi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.3. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) In this writ petition, the dispute is about the land measuring 5 kanals 8 marlas situated in village Bakraha, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala. The said land was sold by petitioners No.1 to 3 to petitioner No.4, who is wife of petitioner No.1. The Gram Panchayat filed a petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') challenging the said sale deed and claiming that the said land was Shamilat Deh and vests in the Gram Panchayat, which was illegally sold by petitioners No.1 to 3 in favour of petitioner No.4.The said suit of the Gram Panchayat, after hearing the parties and providing opportunity to lead evidence, was decreed by the Collector vide order dated 29.11.1996. The CWP No.6360 of 2005 -2- appeal filed by the petitioners against the said order was also dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 1.10.1999. Thereafter, the petitioners challenged those orders by filing CWP No.824 of 2000 which was disposed of by this Court on February 23, 2000 with direction to the petitioners to approach the Collector once again and make their claim on the basis that the land belonged to Jumla Mustarka Malkan and till the time the Collector decides the case the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the land in dispute. Thereafter, the petitioners approached the Collector. The Collector was to re-determine the issue whether the land was Shamilat Deh or not and vests in the Gram Panchayat. Instead of that, the Collector vide order dated 11.2.2002 re-distributed the land while taking the land as Jumla Mustarka Malkan. Against the said order, the Gram Panchayat filed an appeal before the Commissioner, objecting to the order passed by the Collector, totally being without jurisdiction. The Commissioner vide his order dated 25.2.2005 set aside the said order while coming to the conclusion that the Collector under the Act has no jurisdiction to re-distribute the land. He is only required to decide whether the land in dispute vests in the Gram Panchayat or not. Instead of deciding the said issue, the land was re- distributed amongst the proprietors and the said decision was held to be mala fide and given under the influence of the private respondents after colluding with the revenue officials. Consequently, the said order was set aside. Against the said order, the instant writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners very fairly conceded that the Collector under the Act has no jurisdiction to re-distribute the land in terms of the order dated February 23, 2000 passed by this Court in the aforesaid CWP No.6360 of 2005 -3- writ petition. The petitioners were to put their claim before the Collector that the land in dispute does not fall under the definition of Shamilat Deh and thus not vests in the Gram Panchayat, therefore, the learned counsel stated that the petitioners may be permitted to approach the Collector to establish their claim that the land does not fall under the definition of Shamilat Deh and thus not vests in the Gram Panchayat. Therefore, they want to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to approach the Collector to decide the said issues. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has no objection if the petitioners are permitted to approach the Collector under the Act to get the question of title decided, in accordance with law. Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. It will be open for the petitioners to move an application for interim stay before the same authority where they will file claim/petition under Section 11 of the Act. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE September 21, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) vkg JUDGE