C.W.P No.446 of 1987 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : July 22, 2010 1. C.W.P No.446 of 1987 (O&M) 2. C.W.P No.447 of 1987 (O&M) 3. C.W.P No.448 of 1987 (O&M) Gram Panchayat Nalini, Tehsil Sirhind, vs Joint Director of Panchayat Distt. Patiala Punjab and others, *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. A.S.Grewal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Kataria, Advocate for the private respondent(s). *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This order shall dispose of C.W.P Nos. 446 to 448 of 1987 since common questions of law and facts arise therein. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.446 of 1987. The petitioner-Gram Panchayat filed an application under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) for eviction of the private respondents. The private respondents denied title of the petitioner and during the pendency of the C.W.P No.446 of 1987 (O&M) ::2:: said application, they moved a fresh application under Section 11 of the Act with the prayer that during the pendency of the said application, proceedings under Section 7 of the Act be stayed. The Collector, after going through the evidence, found that the private respondents were in possession of the land in dispute as per the jamabandi of the year 1947-48 (2004-05 BK). Thereafter, consolidation took place in the year 1959-60 and as per the Collector, the private respondents were able to link the post consolidation numbers with the pre-consolidation numbers. Consequently, the Collector, holding the private respondents to be owners of the land in dispute, accepted their application under Section 11 of the Act, and as a result thereof dismissed the application under Section 7 of the Act. In appeal, the Commissioner affirmed the findings. Hence this writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner has firstly argued that both these applications filed under Sections 7 and 11 of the Act could not have been decided together. In this regard, he has relied upon Amarjit Singh vs State of Punjab and others, 1988 PLJ 469. In the said case, the Gram Panchayat had moved an application under Section 11 of the Act and the individuals had laid claim to be owners thereof. Their claim was decided as per the procedure prescribed for proceedings under Section 7 of the Act viz Rule 21-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964. The claim of title of the individuals was negatived and the application under Section 7 of the Act was allowed. The Division Bench held as follows :- “ 5. For these two separate situations envisaged in sections 7 and 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 which are to be decided in terms of the procedure prescribed in rules 20, 21 and 21-A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 respectively, learned Collector could not C.W.P No.446 of 1987 (O&M) ::3:: amalgamate both the procedures to suit his convenience. The amalgamation of the two procedures aforesaid, indulged in by the learned Collector and approved by the learned Commissioner is not warranted by the scheme of the Act. There is a basic difference between these two rights. In the proceedings for determination of the possession, the right of ownership cannot be decided when the provision for it is made separately in the same statute. Similarly, the question of wrongful or unauthorized possession cannot be decided in the proceedings under section 11 read with rule 21-A aforesaid when the same officer under the same statute is vested with powers to decide that matter under the separate provision having separate procedure. He cannot, to suit his convenience or the convenience of any of the parties, adopt any procedure out of the two nor can amalgamate both the procedures, as it is not warranted by the scheme of the Act.” Thus, it would be seen that the dictum propounded by the aforesaid judgment was intended for the protection of the individuals. In the present case, the Collector had actually taken cognizance on the application under Section 11 of the Act and kept in abeyance the proceedings under Section 7 of the Act. Once he found that the claim of the private respondents under Section 11 of the Act was well merited and they had become owners of the land in dispute, there was no other option except to reject the application under Section 7 of the Act which was filed by the petitioner-Panchayat. Once the main application for title (to be decided by the Collector like a civil suit) was allowed, the subsidiary application for ejectment (for which summary procedure has been provided) had to be consequently dismissed. No prejudice has been caused to the Panchayat whereas in the case cited positive prejudice has been caused to the C.W.P No.446 of 1987 (O&M) ::4:: individual by the disposal of the application for title in summary manner in the application under Section 7 of the Act. Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that even on merits, the impugned orders of the Collector as well as the Commissioner cannot be sustained. For this, he is seeking to interpret some of the documents which were annexed as evidence in the said proceedings. However, those documents have not been placed before this Court. The counsel then prayed that he may be given permission to place the said documents on record. I am afraid this prayer made after 23 years cannot be countenanced. Even otherwise, I find that the Courts below, while coming to a finding of fact regarding the status of the private respondents vis.a.vis the land in dispute, have rightly considered the revenue records right from 1947-48 to 1979-80, as also the record of consolidation produced before them. Consequently, finding no merit in these writ petitions, the same are dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main petitions have since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 22, 2010. JUDGE `kk'