CWP No.4411 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.4411 of 2010 Date of Decision: 28.6.2010 Kirpal Singh and another .....Petitioners Vs. Assistant Collector Grade-I, Nakodar, Distt.Jalandhar and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. V.G. Dogra, Advocate for the petitioners. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing orders dated 8.11.2007 and 1.4.2009, passed by the Collector-cum-Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Jalandhar and the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department (exercising the powers of Commissioner under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, Sector 17, Chandigarh. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the land in dispute is a part of the Bachat land, which was left over after utilisation, of the land deducted from the right holders, for the common purposes of the village. The petitioners have purchased this land from various shareholders and it therefore, vests in the petitioners. It is argued that the Collector and the CWP No.4411 of 2010 2 Commissioner have committed an error, in dismissing the application filed under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') and the appeal respectively, as the Gram Panchayat has failed to adduce any evidence of its ownership. It is further argued that after purchase of this land, the petitioners filed an application for partition, which was allowed by the Assistant Collector. The Gram Panchayat, therefore, cannot claim ownership merely because the land was described as Jumla Mushtarka Malkan. I have heard counsel for the petitioners, perused the impugned orders, the paper book and am of the considered opinion that the application filed under Section 11 of the Act and the appeal were rightly dismissed. The land in dispute was admittedly described in the revenue record as Jumla Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Arazi Hassab Rasad Raqba. Rule 16(ii) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as `the 1949 Rules') provides that land reserved for common purposes, created by applying a pro rata cut on the holdings of the co-sharers shall be described as Jumla Mushtarka Malkanan Wa Digar Haqdaran Arazi Hasab Rasad Raqba. Though ownership of such land vests in the proprietary body, management and control thereof vests in the Gram Panchayat. Rule 16 of the 1949 Rules reads as follows :- 16(ii) In an estate or estates where during consolidation proceedings there is no shamlat deh land or such land is considered inadequate, land shall be reserved for the village Panchayat and for other common purposes, under Section 18(c) of the Act, out CWP No.4411 of 2010 3 of the common pool of the village at the scale given in the Schedule to these rules. Proprietary rights in respect of land so reserved (except the area reserved for the extension of abadi of proprietors and non proprietors) shall vest in the proprietary body of the estate or estates concerned and it shall be entered in the column of ownership of record of rights as (Jumla Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Arazi Hasab Rasad Raqba). The management of such land shall be done by the Panchayat of the estate or estates concerned on behalf of the village proprietary body and the Panchayat shall have the right to utilise the income derived from the land so reserved for the common needs and the benefits of the estate of estates concerned.” In view of the nature of the land, it belies comprehension as to how the petitioners could have purchased this land. The argument that the land in dispute was left over after utilisation for common purposes has not been proved by reference to any evidence much less any document prepared during consolidation. It would be appropriate to state that the land left over after utilisation for common purposes is more often than not redistributed amongst right holders during consolidation proceedings. In the absence of any evidence that the land was left over during consolidation and was, therefore, available for sale, the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners must necessarily fail. The argument that the Assistant Collector allowed partition CWP No.4411 of 2010 4 proceedings holding that the petitioners are owners of the land in dispute must also fail, as the Gram Panchayat was not impleaded as a party to these proceedings. Even otherwise, the jurisdiction to decide whether a particular piece of land vests or does not so vest in a Gram Panchayat falls to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Collector, exercising powers under Section 11 of the Act. An argument that the Full Bench in Jai Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana 2003(2)PLR 658, has held that “Bachat land” vests in the proprietors may have been of some avail, if the petitioners had established that this land was left over after consolidation as “Bachat land”. In view of what has been stated herein above, as the impugned orders do not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or of law, the writ petition is dismissed in limi-ne. 28.6.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE CWP No.4411 of 2010 5