CWP No. 9920 of 1988 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 9920 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.2.2011 Tara Chand through L.Rs …..Petitioners vs. The Gram Panchayat …..Respondent CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - None for the petitioners. Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate for respondent HEMANT GUPTA, J Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed by the learned Collector on 21.05.1987 (Annexure P-3) and the order in appeal passed by the Commissioner on 26.9.1988 (Annexure P-4) affirming the order passed by Collector, whereby a petition filed by the Tara Chand under Section 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was allowed. Earlier the Gram Panchayat initiated proceedings under Section 7 of the Act for eviction of the petitioner in respect of the land comprising in Khasra No. 427 measuring 4 Bighas and 3 Biswas situated in Village Pantawas, Khurd. The said application was allowed on 22.12.1975 by the Learned Assistant Collector. An appeal filed by the petitioner- 1 CWP No. 9920 of 1988 Tara Chand before the learned Collector was dismissed on 31.7.1996. Thereafter, petitioner filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 2313 of 1976. The said petition was allowed setting aside the order of learned Assistant Collector dated 22.12.1975 and that of Collector dated 31.3.1976 and the matter was remitted back to the learned Collector to treat the written statement filed by the present petitioner as a suit in terms of Section 13- B of the Act. It is, thereafter, the learned Assistant Collector found in its order dated 6.6.1984 that the land in dispute does not vest in Gram Panchayat. Learned Assistant Collector found that the land is described in the revenue record as Banjar Qadim, therefore, such land would fall within the definition of Shamlat Deh only if it used for the common purposes. Such finding was returned on the basis of the Jamabandi for the Year 1951-52, wherein in the ownership column, Khasra No. 427, measuring 4 Bighas 3 Biswas is described as ‘Shamlat deh hasab rasad rakba khewat’ and in the column of cultivation it is described as ‘Makkuja Malkan’. The nature of land has been recorded as Banjar Qadim. In the Jamabandi for the year 1968-69 (Ex. P2), Gram Panchayat is recorded as the owner, whereas the same is reflected in the cultivating possession of the present petitioner. The Learned Assistant Collector held that since the Gram Panchayat has not produced any evidence in respect of the land being used 2 CWP No. 9920 of 1988 for the common purposes, therefore, the land in dispute, does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat filed an appeal against the order dated 6.6.1984 before the learned Collector. The said appeal was allowed. The revision filed by the petitioner was allowed by the learned Commissioner vide the order dated 23.2.1987 with the direction to the learned Collector to decide the matter afresh after hearing both the parties. It was, thereafter, vide the order dated 21.05.1987 (Annexure P-3), learned Collector returned a finding that the land vests in the Gram Panchayat and passed an order of eviction against the present petitioner. Learned Collector found that the petitioner is the unauthorized occupant since February 1968. The said order was affirmed in revision by the learned Commissioner on 26.9.1988 (Annexure P-4). I have gone through the record and pleading of the parties. In the Jamabandi for the year 1951-52, the column of ownership describes the land in dispute as ‘Shamlat deh hasab rasad rakba khewat’ and in the column of cultivation it is described as ‘Makkuja Malkan’. In the Jamabandi for the year 1959-60, the present petitioner is recorded as a co-sharer with Harnam etc. In the subsequent Jamabandi for the year 1968-69, Ex P-2, the land is recorded as owned by Gram Panchayat and in possession of the present petitioner without payment of rent. 3 CWP No. 9920 of 1988 The Petitioner has sought to challenge the order passed on the ground that the land is described as Banjar Qadim but there is no proof of it being used for common purpose, therefore, land in dispute does not vest with Gram Panchayat in terms of Section 2(g)(5) of the Act. It is also alleged that the construction of the houses of the ancestors of the petitioners are proved from the Jamabandi for the year 1959-60. The possession of the petitioners as per the revenue record produced is only from 1959-60. Though, the learned Collector has returned finding that the petitioner is in possession of the land in dispute since Rabi 1968. Prior to the said Jamabandi, the ownership and possession was that of Gram Panchayat. The Land described as Shamlat deh hasab rasad rakba khewat’ and in possession of ‘Makkuja Malkan’ is the land that vest with Gram Panchayat with the Commencement of Shamlat Laws in the year 1953. The Petitioner could succeed only if it is shown that the petitioners as proprietors in the village are in possession of the Land in dispute on 26th January 1950. There is neither allegation nor proof of such fact. Therefore such land would fall within the inclusive definition of Shamlat Deh contained in Section 2(g)(1) of the Act. Section 2(g)(5) of the Act is not applicable in the present case which contemplates that the land described as Banjar 4 CWP No. 9920 of 1988 Qadim and used for the common purposes would be Shamlat Deh since the land vests in the Panchayat under Clause 1 of the Section 2(g) of the Act. Thus, the order passed by Learned Collector and affirmed by Learned Commissioner cannot be said to be suffering from any illegality or irregularity which may warrant interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 16.2.2011 preeti 5