CWP No.11469 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.11469 of 2002 Date of Decision: 15.9.2010 Ramesh Pal .....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. G.S. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana for respondents no.1 to 3. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing orders dated 24.5.2001 and 26.4.2002, passed by the Collector, Karnal and the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, directing the petitioner's ejectment. The petitioner filed a suit under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') before the Collector, Karnal, praying for a declaration that the land in dispute does not belong to the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner pleaded that in the settlement of 1904-5, the total holdings of the village were 3030 Bighas and 1 Biswa. Out of this land, 1642 Bighas and 4 Biswas was earmarked as “Shamilat Deh Hasad Rasad Khewat”. During consolidation, 757 kanals 9 marlas was reserved for common purposes and CWP No.11469 of 2002 2 land measuring 1102 kanals 19 marlas was earmarked as Hasad Rasad Khewat. In the year 1955, revenue officers sanctioned mutation no.123 recording the Gram Panchayat as owner but as the petitioner is in cultivating possession of 90 kanals 2 marlas and 37 kanals 14 marlas, mutation no.123, be declared illegal. The Gram Panchayat filed a response denying these averments and pleaded that the land in dispute belongs to the Gram Panchayat. The jamabandi for the year 1954-55, records that the land is Shamilat Deh and is being used as Charand (a pasture). The land was reserved during consolidation as “Charand” and, therefore, vests in the Gram Panchayat. It was denied that the land was earmarked as Jumla Mushtarka Malkan or Hasad Rasad Khewat. It was further pleaded that mutation no.123 has been sanctioned on the basis of the consolidation scheme. After considering the pleadings of the parties, the Collector framed the following issues :- “1. Whether the character of land is shamlat even before the consolidation proceedings or it was deducted from the proprietors' land through pro-rata cut ? 2. If the land was deducted through pro-rata cut then what was the specific use of this land ? 3. If it was shamlat land even before the consolidation proceedings, whether as per Shart-Wazib- Ul-Arz or otherwise it had been reserved or was being used for common purposes of the village or not ? The Collector dismissed the petition by holding that the CWP No.11469 of 2002 3 petitioner has failed to establish his continuous cultivating possession before 1950. It was also held that as the petitioner was a lessee of the Gram Panchayat, he has no right to challenge the title of the Gram Panchayat. The Collector also held that as the land in dispute is described as “Charand” (a pasture) in clause (vi) of the consolidation scheme, the land is Shamilat Deh and, therefore, vests in the Gram Panchayat. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal. The Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the Collector. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in dispute does not belong to the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner has been in cultivating possession of the land before 26.1.1950. The jamabandis from 1911-12 to 1943-44 record that the land is “Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Paimana Hakiyat” and in possession of the “Makbuza Malkan”(owners). It is further submitted that in the absence of the source of its title, mutation no.123, is an empty piece of paper and does not confer title upon the Gram Panchayat. It is further submitted that the Collector and the Commissioner have failed to appraise the evidence on record, much less the significance of the expression “Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Makbuza Malkan”, which clearly indicates that proprietors continue to be the owners of the land in dispute, despite the enactment of “Shamilat Law” or the “1961 Act”. Counsel for the respondents, however, submits that the land in dispute was reserved as “Charand” as per clause (vi) of the consolidation scheme. Section 2(g)(1)of the Act, clearly provides that land described in the revenue record as Shamilat Deh or Charand is Shamiat Deh. It is further submitted that the expression “Hasab Rasad Makbuza Malkan” is CWP No.11469 of 2002 4 irrelevant as with the enactment of Shamilat Law in the year 1954 and the 1961 Act, all right, title or interest in Shamilat Deh that vested in proprietors came to vest in a Gram Panchayat. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. Section 2(g) (1) of the Act reads as follows :- “2. Definitions - (g) “Shamilat deh” includes - (1) lands described in the revenue records as (Shamilat deh or Charand) excluding abadi deh.” Section 2(g)(1) defines Shamilat Deh to include land described as “Charand” (Pasture). It is not denied that as per clause (vi) of the consolidation scheme, the land in dispute was reserved as “Charand”. The reservation during consolidation and the entries in the revenue record puts paid to any argument that the land in dispute does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. The argument that the land was “Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Paimana Hakiyat” in possession of “Makbuza Malkan” before 1950 is irrelevant. With the enactment of the Shamilat Law in 1954 and the 1961 Act, land recorded as Shamilat Deh, whatever be its nature came to vest in a Gram Panchayat, except to the extent excluded by Section 2(g) and Section 4 of the 1961 Act. The expression “Hasad Rasad Paimana Malkiat” and “Makbuza Malkan” refer to the position of ownership before the enactment of Shamilat Law and the 1961 Act. The argument that the petitioner has been in possession of this land before 1950 remains unsubstantiated for want of any such entry in the revenue record CWP No.11469 of 2002 5 establishing that the petitioner or his predecessors were in cultivating possession of his or their share, in accordance with the exclusion clauses enacted by Section 2(g) of the Act. It is, therefore, apparent that the land belongs to the Gram Panchayat and the petitioner has no right, title or interest therein. In view of what has been stated herein above, as the impugned orders do not call for interference, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. 15.9.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE