IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.808 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 09.05.2011 Gurmeet Singh and another …..Appellants versus The State of Punjab and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.N.P.S.Mann, Advocate for the appellant Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) C.M. No.2162 of 2011 In view of reasons mentioned in this application, which is accompanied by an affidavit of counsel for the appellants, it is allowed and 125 days delay in filing the appeal stands condoned. LPA No.808 of 2011 (O&M) This appeal has been filed against an order dated 13.10.2010, vide which, the learned Single Judge dismissed CWP No.9555 of 2008, filed by the appellants. Heard. The appellants, by stating that the land in dispute falls within the Abadi deh in which their house is situated, claimed that they be declared as owners of that land. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, vide order dated 2.1.2007 (P1), simply by stating that as the land falls within the Abadi deh, it is not included in the shamlat deh land, declared the appellants as owners LPA No.808 of 2011(O&M) of the said land. It was not discussed as to how and under what circumstances the appellants can be declared as owners. Thereafter, the Gram Panchayat went in appeal, which was allowed by the Commissioner by observing as under:- “After going through the record and the impugned order, it is clear that the impugned order has been passed by the lower court in a totally illegal manner. The land in dispute belongs to Gram Panchayat, as various resolutions passed by the Gram Panchayat from time to time show that respondents had illegally occupied this land and even a token fine had been imposed on them which they had deposited, as the salary of respondent No.2 was attached by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura. Even the findings of Collector dated 25.9.2000 clearly show that the land falls within the abadi deh and was in illegal possession of the respondents. The land in dispute is used by Gurmeet Singh and Gurcharan Singh for keeping their Rooris and there is no permanent construction carried out on the site in dispute by them. Even the DDR entry of police station Dera Bassi dated 18.12.2000 clearly shows that possession of this land was taken by Gram Panchayat from the respondents who were in illegal possession of the same earlier. Lower court has overlooked the resolution of the Gram Panchayat and the fact that respondent No.2 had deposited Rs.520/- with the Gram Panchayat for the fine which was imposed by the Gram Panchayat as he has illegally occupying the land in dispute. In case he was the owner, there was no need for him to deposit the fine as per orders of Judicial 2 LPA No.808 of 2011(O&M) Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura. Whatever electricity bills have been produced by the respondents only show their house in the village but not the possession over the land in dispute. The entire record which was produced by Gram Panchayat in the form of resolutions which were passed to follow up this case, clearly show that an effort was made by respondents to illegally occupy this land without any basis. Respondents have not produced any evidence to show that they were part of the village proprietary body and they have a valid share in the land in dispute. Lower court has wrongly concluded that the land in dispute does not belong to the Gram Panchayat as it falls within the Lal Lakir of the village. The land which is used for common purposes and even though situated within the Lal Lakir, falls within definition of Shamlat Deh. This land was used by all the villagers for keeping their Ruries. When some people started encroaching this land, Gram Panchayat, vide its resolution, asked all the encroachers to vacate possession of this land. This was complied by all except respondent No.2 and 3, who continued with encroachment over this land without any solid basis. There is no proof or evidence which shows that the lower court erred in its judgment by declaring respondents no.2 and 3 to be owner in possession of the land in dispute. This land belongs to the Gram Panchayat and is in ownership and possession of the same. Hence the appeal of Gram Panchayat is accepted and the lower court order dated 2.1.2007 is set aside.” 3 LPA No.808 of 2011(O&M) It was found, as a mater of fact, that the land was lying vacant and the same was being used by the appellants as a manure pit. The Gram Panchayat took a specific stand that the land was used by many other land owners also for the said purpose. A firm finding of fact was given by the Commissioner that the said land was being used for common purposes of the village. If that is so, the land cannot be excluded from definition of shamlat deh land. The appellants filed the above said writ petition to lay challenge to an order passed by the Commissioner, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, by observing as under:- “I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. In the absence of any material to hold that the petitioners were in possession before 1950 or that land in dispute is part of their house, the finding recorded in the impugned order does not call for interference. However, as the petitioners were admittedly in possession of one marla of this land, liberty is granted to the petitioners to file an appropriate application under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act read with Rule 4 for protecting their possession.” Counsel for the appellants has failed to show as to what is the legal infirmity in the orders passed by the Commissioner and also by the learned Single Judge. There is nothing on record to show that the land was in possession of the appellants since before the year 1950. Be that as it may, even otherwise, it was found to be a vacant piece of land being used by the villagers for common purpose i.e. to store their manure. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 09.05.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 4 LPA No.808 of 2011(O&M) 5