IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 16325 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : 13.10.2011 Hardev Singh and another .... PETITIONERS Versus State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Sukhwinder Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioners. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. ( Oral ) The petitioners have filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 10.3.2009 (Annexure P-10), passed by Collector, Patiala, whereby the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), for declaring them owners of the land measuring 21 kanals 17 marlas, situated in village Harigarh alias Buta Singh Wala, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala, was dismissed; as well as the order dated 5.2.2010 (Annexure P-12) passed by the Commissioner, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners against the said order has also been dismissed. CWP No. 16325 of 2011 -2- We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the impugned orders. The petitioners claim that the land in dispute is owned by them, but it was wrongly mutated in favour of the Gram Panchayat, vide mutation No. 253 dated 17.10.1956, though the same does not fall under the definition of `shamilat deh'. It is further the case of the petitioners that their case falls under exception (viii) of Section 2 (g) (5) of the Act, as they/their forefathers are in continuous cultivating possession of the disputed land prior to 26.1.1950. It is admitted position that prior to the mutation dated 17.10.1956, the land in dispute was described as Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Zar Khewat in the revenue record, therefore, in view of Section 3 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953, the mutation was sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat and since then, it is recorded under the ownership of the Gram Panchayat. However, in the various jamabandis i.e. from the year 1961-62 to 2001-02 regarding the land in dispute, which have been placed on record by the petitioners, the petitioners or their forefathers were recorded in possession of the disputed land as Gair Marusi tenants on `Chakota'. This factual position has not been disputed. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the entry of `Chakota' in the revenue record is wrong, and the forefathers of the petitioners were in possession of the disputed land on or before 26.1.1950 as owners, though in the revenue record the land was recorded as Shamilat CWP No. 16325 of 2011 -3- Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat. This fact has not been established from the record produced by the petitioners. Admittedly, land mentioned in the jamabandi for the year 1954-55 has not been connected with the land in dispute, as the petitioners did not produce any record of consolidation in this regard. Only jamabandis for various years have been produced, which have been considered by the authorities below, and thereafter, a finding of fact has been recorded that the petitioners were `Chakotedars' on the land in dispute. It has also been held as a fact that the petitioners could not prove that their case falls under any of the exceptions of Section 2 (g) (5) of the Act. It is well established principle that a `Chakotedar'/lessee has no right to challenge the title of his landlord [See Jarnail Singh and others v. Joint Director, Panchayats and others, 1999 (1) PLJ 318 and Mam Deen v. State of Haryana and others, 2000 (2) PLJ 569]. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that the Gram Panchayat did not produce any evidence to prove its ownership cannot be accepted, because in a title suit filed under Section 11 of the Act, the burden to prove ownership on the disputed land lies on the person who asserts that he is owner in possession of the same. In the present case, in the revenue record, ownership of the Gram Panchayat on the land in dispute has been recorded since the year 1954, which clearly established that the Gram Panchayat is owner of the land in dispute. To be successful in their suit, it is for the petitioners to prove by leading cogent evidence that the Gram Panchayat is not the owner of disputed land and the land does not fall under CWP No. 16325 of 2011 -4- the definition of shamilat deh, and does vest in the Gram Panchayat. But no such evidence has been led by the petitioners. Thus, we do not find any illegality in the impugned orders, passed by the authorities below. No merits. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE October 13, 2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) ndj JUDGE