C.W.P. No. 9305 of 1993 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 9305 of 1993 DATE OF DECISION: 16.08.2011 Bansi Dhar ..........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana through Secretary Panchayat ..........Respondents and Development, Haryana and others BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. N.C. Kinra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Kumar, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for respondent No.5. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 22.9.1992 (Annexure P-5) passed by Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak, order dated 12.3.1991 (Annnexure P-3) passed by Collector, Rohtak as well as order dated 26.11.1989 (Annexure P-1) passed by Assistant Collector, Jhajjar, vide which the claim of the petitioner was partly allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the authorities below mainly on the ground that the petitioner is in possession of the land in dispute since long and the question of title should not have been decided by the Collector declaring the land in dispute as shamlat deh and the Gram Panchayat as owner, without impleading the C.W.P. No. 9305 of 1993 (2) Government as party, who is owner of the land in dispute since 1933. Learned counsel further submits that the finding regarding question of title by the learned Assistant Collector has been ignored and the order of collector is confirmed on the basis of Sharat-wajib-ul-urj (Ex. D/4) and a wrong finding has been given that the land in dispute automatically comes back to its previous owner. It is also the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the possession of the petitioner has been proved from the order of Assistant Collector Ist Grade and the same has been affirmed by the report of Patwari as well as Field Kanungo. Learned counsel also submits that the appeal filed by the Gram Panchayat was time barred as the same was filed after delay of 19 months and no application for condonation of delay was moved and the delay was wrongly condoned. Mr. Ramesh Hooda, learned counsel for respondent No.5 opposes the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is neither in possession nor has any right, title or interest on the land in dispute. Under Section 13-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, only a person who is claiming any right, title or interest on the land in dispute can file a suit. The dispute is in between the State Government and the Gram Panchayat. Moreover the petitioner never remained in possession of the land in dispute. The only grouse of the petitioner is that the land in dispute is surrounded by his own land. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 further submits that a specific finding that the petitioner never remained in possession of the land in dispute has been recorded by all the Courts below. This fact is also clear from the Jamabandi for the years 1931-32, wherein, land in dispute has been recorded as shamlat deh and has been transferred in the name of State Government for the first time. A brick kiln was installed and the land is deemed to come back automatically to the original land owner i.e. Gram Panchayat. It is also settled that sharat-wajib-ul-urj is also record of right C.W.P. No. 9305 of 1993 (3) which is just like entries in jamabandi. Learned counsel also submits that the suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the civil Court and the appeal against the said order was also dismissed. Learned counsel has also brought to the notice of the Court that the material fact has been concealed by the petitioner by stating that the petitioner has been in possession of the land in dispute since long, whereas, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was in possession of the land in dispute. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned orders as well as other documents available on the record. Admittedly, the petitioner filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against Gram Panchayat, Chimanpura regarding the land in dispute i.e. Khasara No. 49 measuing 10 kanals 10 marlas before Sub judge Ist Class, Jhajjar which was returned to the petitioner to file it before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction vide order dated 12.12.1981. Against the order dated 12.12.1981, the petitioner filed an appeal before District Judge, Rohtak, which was also dismissed on 5.4.1982. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a suit before Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jhajjar, which was decreed vide order dated 28.11.1984 by holding that the land in dispute is owned by the Government and it has no relation with the Gram Panchayat because of the old possession by the petitioner. Against the said judgment dated 28.11.1994, the Gram Panchayat filed an appeal before Collector, Rohtak, who accepted the appeal on 7.10.1985 and judgment of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jhajjar was set aside and the case was remanded to decide the fact whether the land in dispute is shamlat deh or not. On remand, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Jhajjar vide order dated 26.11.1986 held that the land is not shamlat deh and the same does not belong to Gram Panchayat and the owner is the State Government but the plea of permanent injunction was rejected on the C.W.P. No. 9305 of 1993 (4) ground that there was no entry in the jamabandi and khasra girdwari and order of permanent injunction cannot be passed against the Gram Panchayat. Against order dated 26.11.1986, the Gram Panchayat filed an appeal, which was allowed by Collector, Rohtak vide its order dated 12.3.1991 and order of Assistant Collector was set aside. Aggrieved by order dated 12.3.1991, the petitioner filed revision before Commissioner, Rohtak, which was also dismissed on 22.9.1992. The main plea of the petitioner in challenging the orders passed by the authorities concerned is that the possession of the land by the petitioner has not been taken into consideration and the dispute of question of title is there, which has not been decided. A wrong finding has been given that the land in dispute would automatically come back to the Gram Panchayat by way of sharat-wajib-ul-urj which is misreading of the document by the learned collector whereas there is no such provision. Admittedly, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show anything neither from the record nor from any document that the petitioner has remained in possession of the land in dispute. The petitioner has lost his case before all the authorities and only the suit filed by him before Assistant Collector-Ist Grade was partly allowed in his favour. It appears from the orders passed by the concerned authorities that the land in dispute has been shown as shamlat deh in the jamabandi pertaining to the year 1931-32 and subsequently the same was transferred in the name of State as the land was taken by State Government for installation of brick kiln. Even in sharat-wajib-ul-urj the Panchayat is shown as owner of the land in dispute and there is no evidence on record the prove the possession of the petitioner. It appears from the record that the land in dispute was auctioned for lease for one year on 18.5.1993 and the bid was cancelled as the same was not accepted by the Panchayat. Subsequently, it was decided by the Gram Panchayat to give the land to C.W.P. No. 9305 of 1993 (5) the Forest Department for nursery purpose. Even from perusal of the sharat-wajib-ul-urj the possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute has not been proved and as per Section 31 of the Land Revenue Act, sharat-wajib-ul-urh is also a record of the right and can be perused like any other revenue record by the revenue officers. In view of the facts as mentioned above as well as orders passed by the various authorities as well the fact that as a specific finding has been recorded by all the courts that the petitioner never remained in possession of the land in dispute and even during the argument learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that document with regard to possession over the land in dispute, no interference is called for in the orders passed by the authorities concerned and as such there is no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. August 16, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE