IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.563 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 12.05.2011 Bhagwan Singh and others …..Appellants versus Joint Director Panchayat and another ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. Sunil Garg, Advocate for the appellants Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) C.M. No.1503 of 2011 In view of reasons mentioned in this application, which is accompanied by affidavit, the same is allowed and 55 days delay in filing the appeal stands condoned. LPA No.563 of 2011 This appeal has been filed against judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on 1.10.2010, dismissing CWP No.2619 of 1987, filed by the appellants. Heard. It is apparent from the records that the Gram Panchayat – respondent No.3 filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) before the Collector with a prayer that the appellants be ejected from the land in dispute bearing khasra No.39//19 (6-18). LPA No.563 of 2011(O&M) Upon notice, appellants appeared and took a stand that they had purchased the land from Anant Ram, Narota Ram sons of Atama Ram and Yad Ram son of Nanak Ram vide sale deeds executed in the year 1955 and 1963. It was their case that as per provisions of Section 2(g) of the Act, land does not fall in the definition of shamlat deh land. It is further alleged that the land under their possession is not more than the share of their predecessor in interest, who were in possession of the land in dispute and after the date of purchase, they had been cultivating the same. The Collector dismissed the application filed by the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat went in appeal, which was allowed by the Joint Director, Panchayats (exercising the powers of Commissioner under the Act), vide order dated 20.2.1987. After discussing evidence on record, the appellate authority observed as under:- “4. I have heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the record carefully. Respondents have produced Jamabandies for the years 1951-52, 1955-56, 1963-64, 1966- 67 and 1971-72 in their favour. “Shamlat Deh” is mentioned in the column of ownership in these Jamabandies. Consolidation took place in the village in the year 1961-62 and the jamabandi prepared after consolidation is of the year 1963-64. From this Jamabandi onwards, Nagar Panchayat is mentioned in column no.4. From this entry it becomes clear that Gram Panchayat was given this land in lieu of land which has been shown as Shamlat Deh in the Jamabandi for the year 1951-52. 5. In the Jamabandi for the year 1956-57, Nagar Panchayat is mentioned in the ownership of this land whereas 2 LPA No.563 of 2011(O&M) Naranjan Singh etc. is mentioned in the column of cultivation and the khasra number of this land is given as 42/1. After this, there has been consolidation in the village. The respondent has made no effort to connect this land with the land which was in his possession prior to consolidation. He has tried to prove this fact only from the excerpt prepared by the Qanungo that the present land has been given to them in lieu of the land which was in there possession before consolidation. The Qanungo has mentioned in the Excerpt that respondents have also purchased the share of Sh.Anant Ram, Sh. Narota Ram sons of Atma Ram and Yad Ram son of Nanak Ram in the shamlat land alongwith the land purchased by them. This land has been given to them in lieu of the land which was not in their possession prior to consolidation. But he has not produced the concerned record in support of his argument and as such his oral argument cannot be accepted. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents laid a great stress on the fact that this land has been purchased by the respondents vide sale deeds dated 14.2.63, 2.8.55, 10.4.55 alongwith the share of the vendors in the Shamlat land. This land does not fall within the definition of Shamlat land as this land has been purchased by them. This argument is not worth accepting because according to Section 2 (g) (iv) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 only those persons can be given exemption who have purchased Shamlat land before 26th January, 1950 and the share of the vendor should not be less than the share sold in the Shamlat 3 LPA No.563 of 2011(O&M) land. This purchase does not fulfill the conditions of this clause as this land has been purchased by the respondents after 26.1.1950. They have also been unable to prove that the share sold in the Shamlat was not more than the share of Anant Ram etc. in the Shamlat land. So this argument is rejected. 7. So far as the possession of the present appellants is concerned, they are proved to be in possession from the year 1963-64. Consolidation is stated to have taken place in this village in the year 1960-61. They have been unable to connect the land in dispute with the land in their possession prior to consolidation. So it is clear that they are in possession of this land from 1963 after consolidation. 8. After keeping in view these arguments, I have reached at the conclusion that possession of the respondents is proved from the year 1963-64 and they are not entitled to remain in possession on the basis of this possession. Their possession is unauthorized. So this appeal is being accepted and the order of Collector (D.D.P.O.) dated 26.9.1984 is reversed. Immediate steps be taken to take possession from the respondent.” The appellants filed CWP No.2619 of 1987, which was dismissed vide the impugned order in this appeal. It is apparent from the record that thereafter by stating that some documents could not be brought on record, an application for review was filed, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 7.1.2011. 4 LPA No.563 of 2011(O&M) By making reference to a jamabandi Annexure P2 (which was not on the record of the writ petition), counsel for the appellants argued that the land was shown shamlat patti and vendors of the appellants were in possession. After looking into that document and also Annexure P14 i.e. jamabandi for the year 1971-72, it becomes apparently clear that in the year 1956-57, the land was shown as Banjar Qadim. If that is so, consistent stand of counsel for the appellants that initially, the vendors and thereafter they were in cultivating possession of the land, appears to be false. There is nothing on record to show that what was the extent of shamlat patti land, how much was the share of vendors of the appellants. No attempt was made at any stage to prove above said fact. Unless those facts are proved, the appellants cannot claim any ownership right in the shamlat patti land. Otherwise also, from the document on record i.e. Annexure P12, it is coming out that in many cases, land was given on chakota, entries are existing in that regard in the jamabandi. If that is so, it can be presumed that the land was being used for common purposes of the village. Such like land will not fall outside the definition of Section 2(g) of the Act. The learned Single Judge, after taking note of above said contention, rightly came to a conclusion that there is nothing on record that the appellants/ their vendors were in cultivating possession for the last more than 50 years. It was further rightly held that there is nothing on record to show that the appellants have become owners of the land in dispute. No illegality in the order has been indicated. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 12.05.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 5 LPA No.563 of 2011(O&M) 6