CWP No.8386 of 1987 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.8386 of 1987 Date of Decision: 4.8.2008 Smt.Daan Kaur and others .....Petitioners Vs. Gram Panchayat, Manana and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr.Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Ajay Chaudhary, DAG, Haryana. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) This order shall dispose of CWP No.8386, 8387, 8388, 8389 and 8390, 8391 and 8392 of 1987, as common questions of law and fact arise for adjudication. The petitioners pray for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the order dated 25.6.1987 passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, accepting the revision filed by the Gram Panchayat, whereby the orders dated 20.11.1985 passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Panipat and dated 7.8.1986 passed by the Collector, Panipat have been set aside and the matter has been remitted to the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Panipat for a fresh adjudication, after grant of an opportunity to the parties, to produce relevant documents, to establish that the land in their possession, prior to 1950, was allotted to them during consolidation proceedings. CWP No.8386 of 1987 2 The petitioners filed a suit for declaration, under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') alleging the suit land did not vest in the Gram Panchayat. The petitioners asserted their ownership by alleging that Khasra Nos.3270, 3274 and 6214 situated in the revenue estate of Village Manana, Tehsil Panipat, Distt.Karnal, was wrongly recorded as Shamlat Deh, in the Jamabandi for the year 1951-52. The land was in the continuous cultivating possession of the petitioners and prior thereto of their forefathers and, therefore, did not answer to the description of “Shamlat Deh” as defined under Section 2(g) of the Act . It was also asserted that after consolidation of holdings, the petitioners were allotted land measuring 65 kanals and 11 marlas, in lieu of the Khasra Nos. in their possession, prior to 1950. The Gram Panchayat, respondent no.1, filed a written response, denying the petitioners assertions. The Assistant Collector, Ist Grade framed issues and called upon parties to lead evidence. Vide order dated 20.11.1985, the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade held that as the petitioners had succeeded in establishing their continuos cultivating possession over the suit land from the year 1937, the Panchayat had no concern with the land. It was held, on the basis of documents Exs.P-11 and P-12, that the petitioners were allotted the suit land after consolidation, in lieu of Khasra Nos.3270, 3274 and 6214. The Collector also directed the Gram Panchayat to deliver possession to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the above order, the Gram Panchayat filed an appeal before the Collector, Karnal. Vide order dated 7.8.1986, the Collector dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Panipat. The Gram Panchayat, thereafter, filed a CWP No.8386 of 1987 3 revision before the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala. Vide order dated 25.6.1987, the learned Commissioner, remanded the case to the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Panipat, on the premise that as the petitioners had not produced the Khatoni Ishtemal, Khatoni Paimish and Naqsha Haqdarwar, it was difficult to hold that the suit land was allotted to the petitioners during consolidation, in lieu of the Khasra Nos. in their possession before 26.1.1950. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, has committed a serious error, while remanding the case to the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade. It is argued that the learned Commissioner failed to peruse documents Exs.P-11 and P-12. These documents clearly establish that the land in dispute was allotted to the petitioners, in lieu of the land in their possession in 1937. Ex.P-12 is a document prepared by the Consolidation Authorities, reflecting the land allotted to the petitioners in lieu of the land in their possession in the year 1937. The demarcation report Ex.P-11, evidences the delivery of possession of the new Khasra numbers. These documents, when read together, clearly establish that the land in dispute, was allotted to the petitioners during consolidation, in lieu of the land in their possession in the year 1937. It is further submitted that the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, relied upon these documents, to return a finding that the land in possession of the petitioners in 1937, was allotted to them during consolidation. It is further stated that after remand proceedings are still pending adjudication before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Panipat, awaiting the outcome of the writ petition. Counsel for the respondents, however, asserts that the CWP No.8386 of 1987 4 petitioner has impugned an order of remand, which merely directs them to produce documents to clarify the fact that the land shown in their possession in the year 1937, was allotted to them. It is further submitted that as there is no evidence on record, to suggest that the land in dispute was allotted during consolidation proceedings, the present writ petition be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. As facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition have already been narrated herein above, they, therefore, do not require repetition. The dispute herein relates to the legality of an order of remand, passed by the Commissioner, Ambala. The learned Commissioner set aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Panipat and the order passed by the Collector, Karnal, by observing that as the petitioners had failed to produce the Khatoni Ishtemal, the Khatoni Paimish and Naqsha Haqdarwar, it was difficult to hold that the land in their possession in the year 1937, was allotted to them during consolidation. A perusal of the impugned order leaves no manner of doubt that the learned Commissioner committed a fundamental error of jurisdiction in remanding the case. The Commissioner failed to, advert to or consider the contents of the documents Exs.P-11 and P-12. Ex.P-12 clearly enumerates the Khasra numbers allotted to the petitioners, in lieu of land in their possession in the year 1937 i.e. Khasra Nos. 3270, 3274 and 6214. The document Ex.P-11 evidences the delivery of possession of the suit land, in lieu of the aforementioned Khasra numbers. The authenticity of these documents, has not been impeached by anyone, more particularly, by counsel for the Gram Panchayat. Had the Commissioner, perused these CWP No.8386 of 1987 5 documents, it would have obviated the order of remand. It would also be necessary to mention here that before remanding the case, the learned Commissioner failed to record any finding, as to the question of ownership, decided in favour of the petitioners. This ambiguity, as to whether the remand was limited to the question of identity of the land or ownership or to both is another error. An order of remand passed without appraisal of or reference to relevant material on record, would necessarily be illegal and erroneous. In this view of the matter, as the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, the revisional authority has committed an error of jurisdiction, in failing to appraise or refer to the documents Exs.P-11 and P-12, relied upon by the Assistant Collector and the Collector, to identify the land, the writ petitions are allowed and the orders dated 25.6.1987 passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala are set aside. The revision is restored to the Court of Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala, for adjudication afresh, in accordance with law. It is made clear that in case, any doubt persists, as to the identity of the land, the Commissioner would be free to call upon the parties, to prove or disprove the identity of the suit land, in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala on 19.9.2008. As the matter has been pending for a considerable period of time, the learned Commissioner shall make every endeavour to decide the revision petition, within six months from the next date of hearing. 4.8.2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE CWP No.8386 of 1987 6