IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.12803 of 2007 Date of decision : 22.12.2011 Harnek Singh and others … Petitioners Versus Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab and others …Respondents CWP No.2534 of 2009 Date of decision : 22.12.2011 Gram Panchayat Faggan Majra … Petitioner Versus Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present : Mr.Vikas Mehsempuri, Advocate for the petitioners. (in CWP No.12803 of 2007) and for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 (In CWP No. 2534 of 2009) Mr.J.S.Bhandohal, Advocate for the petitioner (CWP No.2534 of 2009) and for respondent Nos. 3 (In CWP No. 12803 of 2007) Mr.Manohar Lall, Addl.AG, Punjab for respondent No.1 and 2 Paramjeet Singh, J. This order will dispose of CWP No.12803 of 2007 titled as ‘Harnek Singh and others Vs. Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab and others’ and CWP No.2534 of 2009 titled as ‘Gram CWP No.12803 of 2007 CWP No.2534 of 2009 Panchayat Faggan Majra Vs. Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab and others by a common order as the same have arisen from the same impugned order dated 15.2.2007 (Annexure P-3) passed by Commissioner in appeal and order dated 14.11.2005 (Annexure P-1) passed by Collector in application under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation), Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to be as the ‘Act’), respectively. Brief facts of the case are that Gram Panchayat filed a petition under Section 11 of the Act. The said petition was allowed by the Collector vide order dated 14.11.2005 (Annexure P-1) and the appeal preferred by Harnek Singh and others -petitioner in CWP No.12803 of 2007), has also been dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 15.2.2007 (Annexure P-3) as the same was not maintainable. Now against the order dated 15.2.2007 (Annexure P-3) and order dated 14.11.2005 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Commissioner and Collector respectively, Gram Panchayat and Harnek Singh and others have filed the aforesaid two writ petitions (Harnek Singh and others have filed a writ petition for quashing of both the orders of Collector and Commissioner, whereas Gram Panchayat has filed a writ petition for quashing of order dated 15.2.2007 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Commissioner). We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. In the revenue record i.e. in the Jamabandi for the years 1958-59 onwards till 1996, Gram Panchayat has been shown as owner and in the cultivation column, ‘self cultivation Nagar 2 CWP No.12803 of 2007 CWP No.2534 of 2009 Panchayat Deh’ is entered. The entry regarding cultivation of Harnek Singh etc. is as lessee. Besides this, documentary evidence (Annexure P-7) indicates that Gram Panchayat has been giving this land on lease. The income derived from this land is being used for common purposes of the village. The Collector after appreciation of the revenue record, came to the conclusion that the land in question vests in Gram Panchayat and the petitioners have failed to prove their possession prior to 26.1.1950 over the disputed land as owner. However, the Commissioner recorded a finding that the land in question is a “Bachat” land. The said finding is not based on any evidence on record. In spite of recording a finding, the appeal preferred by Harnek Singh etc. has been dismissed on the ground of non- maintainability as the land had been acquired for grid of the Punjab State Electricity Board. In the Jamabandi for the year 1986-87, the possession of Harnek Singh etc. has been shown as lessee. There is overwhelming evidence to the effect that the Gram Panchayat is the owner of the land. There is not an iota of evidence on record from which possession of the petitioners or their ancestors could be proved as owner since 26.1.1950. It would be appropriate to mention here that prior to coming into force the Act, earlier the land was shown as Shamlat and such land also vests in the Gram Panchayat. As per Section 23A of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, such land vests for management and control in the Gram Panchayat. 3 CWP No.12803 of 2007 CWP No.2534 of 2009 After appreciation of the revenue record, it is evident that the land in question vests in the Gram Panchayat and Gram Panchayat is the owner of the land. Although, the finding has been recorded in favour of Harnek Singh to the effect that the land is ‘Bachat’ land, that the said finding is not sustainable in the eyes of law in view of the revenue record as mentioned above. So that finding is also set aside. In view of the above, upholding the impugned orders by the revenue authorities, Civil Writ Petition No. 2534 of 2009 filed by the Gram Panchayat is allowed while Civil Writ Petition No. 12803 of 2007 filed by Harnek Singh and others is hereby dismissed. [ PARAMJEET SINGH ] JUDGE [ SATISH KUMAR MITTAL] JUDGE 22.12.2011 sd/vkd 4