C.W.P. Nos.2614 & 2615 of 1987 - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 06.01.2011 1) C.W.P. No.2614 of 1987 Sh. Mohinder Singh ……Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and others ……Respondents 2) C.W.P. No.2615 of 1987 Kaka Singh and others ……Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI -.- Present: Mr. K.S. Cheema, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Gill, D.A.G., Punjab. Mr. Hardip Singh, Advocate for respondent No.4. *** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? C.W.P. Nos.2614 & 2615 of 1987 - 2- AJAY TEWARI, J. This order shall dispose of C.W.P. Nos.2614 of 1987 and 2615 of 1987 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. For the sake of convenience the facts are being extracted from C.W.P. No.2615 of 1987. This petition has been filed challenging the orders of eviction passed against the petitioner under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The ground taken is that in the Jamabandi for the year 1947-48 (Annexure P3/A) the land was shown as Banjar Qadim and thereafter the petitioner brought it under cultivation by dint of hard labour. It was further mentioned that in the column of cultivator it was shown as Maqbooza Malkan even though in the column of ownership it was mentioned as Shamlat Deh. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the protection granted by sub clause (ii) of clause (3) of Section 4 of The Punjab village Common Lands(Regulation)Act, 1961 (as applicable to Punjab) (for brevity “the Act”) which is quoted herein below:- “S.4(3)(ii): rights of persons in cultivating pos- session of shamilat deh, for more than twelve years (immediately preceding the commence- ment of this Act) without payment of rent or by payment of charges not exceeding the land revenue and cesses payable thereon.” C.W.P. Nos.2614 & 2615 of 1987 - 3- As per learned counsel, in summary proceedings under Section 7 all that the petitioner had to show was prima facie evidence and that would entitle him to non suit the respondent No.4-Gram Panchayat. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the possession of the petitioner is not reflected in the Jambandi for the year 1947-48 and is only reflected in the Jamabandi for the year 1951-52. He has drawn specific attention of the court to Khasra Gir- dawari (Annexure P3/1) as per which the possession of the petitioner is shown only for the first time in Katak 2007 BK (which corresponds to September 1950) and thus it is not proved that the petitioner was in possession for a period of more than 12 years as envisaged by section 4(3)(ii) of the Act (supra). In these circumstances it has to be held that the petitioner is not entitled to protection of Section 4(3)(ii) of the said Act. Consequently the petitions are dismissed. ( AJAY TEWARI ) January 06, 2011 JUDGE ashish