C.W.P. No.11176 of 2011 etc. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.11176 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 Hem Raj and others .....PETITIONERS Versus The Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others ....RESPONDENTS C.W.P. No.11308 of 2011 Kali Ram and another .....PETITIONERS Versus The Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others ....RESPONDENTS C.W.P. No.11310 of 2011 Fatta and others .....PETITIONERS Versus The Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR --- Present: Mr. C.B. Goel Advocate, for the petitioners. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. C.W.P. No.11176 of 2011 etc. -2- This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.11176, 11308 and 11310 of 2011 as the question of facts and law involved in all the petitions is the same. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders dated 20.9.2005 (Annexure P3), 27.12.2006 (Annexure P4) and 6.10.2010 (Annexure P5) passed by the Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner, respectively, whereby the suit filed by all the petitioners in the representative capacity as well as individual capacity, has been dismissed, and the appeal and revision preferred against the said order, has also been dismissed. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the impugned orders. In this case, the disputed land was the land of Thola and Panna. It is the case of the petitioners that the said land, which belong to the proprietors of the particular Thola and Panna, does not vest in the Gram Panchayat because the same was never used for common purposes of the village, and without any authority on the government letter the mutation of the land in dispute was sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat. It is further the case of the petitioners that prior to the change of mutation the land in dispute was Banjar Kadim Thur and it was never used for common purposes of the village. Therefore, the same does not fall under the definition of Shamilat Deh. The Collector vide impugned order dated 20.9.2005 has recorded a finding of fact that as per the jamabandi for the year 1961-62, in C.W.P. No.11176 of 2011 etc. -3- the column of ownership, the land in dispute was recorded as `Shamlat Panna Beniwal' and in the column of cultivation as `Charand' . Same is the position in the jamabandi for the year 1993-94. On the basis of these documents, it has been found as a fact that the land in dispute continued as `Charand' since 1961-62 and this land never remained in individual possession of any of the biswedars. It is being used for grazing of the cattle, which is a common purpose. It was held that as per Section 2(g)(3) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, if in the revenue record the entry is Shamlat Taraf, Patti, Panna and Thola and the land is used for common purposes, such land vests in the Gram Panchayat. The said finding of fact has been affirmed by the appellate as well as revisional authorities. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that though in the revenue record it has been shown that the land is being used as Charand, but actually the land in dispute is under cultivation of the individual proprietors. In our opinion, the oral contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners without any documentary proof cannot be accepted and it is settled position that in order to ascertain whether a particular land falls under the definition of Shamilat Deh for which under Section 2(g)(3) of the Act, the Collector is required to see the nature of land given in the revenue records. If in the revenue record the land of Thola and Panna has been described as being used for common purposes of the village, then such land vests in the Gram Panchayat (See Gram Panchayat Sadhraur (Formerly Dhumma) and Gram Sabha Sadhraur (Formerly Dhumma) Versus Baldev Singh and others, 1977 PLJ 276). C.W.P. No.11176 of 2011 etc. -4- Undisputedly, the `Charand' is use of land for common purposes. In view of the finding of fact recorded by the authorities below that the disputed land has never been in individual cultivation possession of the proprietors and the same in fact is being used as `Charand' (for grazing of cattle) and other common purposes of the village, such land falls within the ambit of Shamilat Deh. Thus, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned orders. No merits. Dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE September 20, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) vkg JUDGE