C.W.P No. 2619 of 1987 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No. 2619 of 1987 (O&M) Date of decision : October 01, 2010 Jagir Singh, dead, through L.Rs and another ...... Petitioners v. Joint Director Panchayats Punjab and others, ...... Respondents *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Sunil Garg, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.S.S.Gill, DAG Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. H.S.Gill, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R.K.Dhiman, Advocate for respondent No.3. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the Appellate Authority dated 20.2.1987 (Annexure P-3) under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) whereby the appeal of the Gram Panchayat was allowed and consequently an application under Section 7 of the Act filed by the petitioners was C.W.P No. 2619 of 1987 (O&M) ::2:: dismissed. The petitioners allege that they had purchased the land about 50 years ago along with the shares of their vendors in the shamlat land. Main reliance is placed on the finding of the Collector who has dismissed the eviction petition. Even in the order of the Collector, the following finding has been recorded :- “...... From the reports Ex.R11 and Ex.R18, produced by the second Patwar Mohareer, it is clear that the respondents have purchased Shamlat land along with some other land through registered sale deeds from the above mentioned persons and long possession of the above said vendors on the land is also proved....” It would be seen that in the entire writ petition, there is no specific averment that the vendors of the petitioners were in possession of the land on a date 12 years prior to the coming into force the Act. It has, however, been averred in the writ petition that the documentary evidence has clearly proved that the petitioners purchased share in the shamlat land which is not more than the shares of their vendors and that the vendors of the petitioners were in possession of the land in dispute much prior to the relevant date. However, there is no reference to any revenue record which may corroborate the above contention. The Appellate Authority has found that the petitioners had produced jamabandis for the years 1951-52, 1955-56, 1963-64, 1966-67 and 1971-72. In my opinion, none of these jamabandis could go to show that the vendors of the petitioners were in possession of the land prior to the appointed date. C.W.P No. 2619 of 1987 (O&M) ::3:: The second argument raised by counsel for the petitioners is that in the jamabandi (Annexure R-10), the land was shown to be owned by Patti Krishna and, therefore, was out of the purview of the shamlat land. The specific plea taken in the written statement is that no such document was placed on the record of this petition. This reply was filed on 24.8.1987 and despite the passage of 23 years, no such document has been placed on record. Today, counsel for the petitioners has prayed that if a period of one week is granted, he would place the relevant documents on record. In my opinion, no such indulgence can be granted at this stage. Once there was a specific plea in the written statement, it was open for the petitioners to place the relevant documents on record. Counsel for the petitioners has also argued that one of the prayers made in the writ petition is for calling the record of the case and, therefore, the record should now be summoned. In my opinion, even though there is such a prayer, it is not incumbent on this Court to call for the original record. Had the petitioners placed any document on record, of- course it may have been necessary to call for the original record to authenticate the veracity thereof. There was no bar to the petitioners to file any document along with the writ petition or on any subsequent date. In my opinion, it would not be in the interest of justice to now delay the hearing of this case any further to enable the petitioners to embark upon a denovo trial for moving an application for placing on record a document regarding which an objection was taken under notice to the petitioners 23 years ago, and which would set up a case neither pleaded nor proved. No other point has been raised or pleaded. Consequently, finding no merit in this writ petition, the same is C.W.P No. 2619 of 1987 (O&M) ::4:: dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main petition has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) October 01, 2010. JUDGE `kk'