Dismissed

Gram Panchayat v. Joint Development Commissioner and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Nov 2006CWP/17773/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash orders recognizing an individual as the owner of land previously adjudged as common land under the Punjab Village Common Lands Regulation Act, 1961, finding no merit in the challenge as the land was not reserved for common purposes during consolidation.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed.

Gram Panchayat Vs Joint Development Commissioner… — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2006)

¶1

C.W.P. No. 17773 of 2006 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

C.W.P. No. 17773 of 2006

¶4

Date of decision: November 10, 2006

Gram Panchayat

.........Petitioner

Versus

The Joint Development Commissioner (IRD) and Ors ...........Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NIRMAL YADAV

¶10

Present: Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate for the petitioner

¶11

-.-

¶12

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J (Oral)

¶13

The Gram Panchayat has filed this writ petition impugning the orders dated 16.01.2002(Annexure P-1) and dated 30.08.2006( Annexure P- 3) by which respondent No.3 has been held to be the owner of land measuring 16 kanals.

¶14

The facts of the case are that respondent No.3 had filed a petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation )Act, 1961( herein after to be called as the Act), wherein it was averred that he was in possession of the suit land prior to 1950 and thus, in view of Section 4(3) (ii) of the Act, the land was exempted from the definition of ' shamlat deh' and that he had become the owner of the same. Respondent No. 3 also relied on the scheme of consolidation, which shows that the land in question was never reserved for common purposes.

¶15

The Collector allowed the petition under Section 11 of the Act,

¶16

C.W.P. No. 17773 of 2006 2

¶17

filed by respondent No.3. Thereafter, the Gram Panchayat filed an appeal before the Commissioner, which was dismissed.

¶18

A perusal of the impugned orders shows that as respondent No. 3 was in possession of the suit land measuring 16 kanals, situated in Village Ibrahimwal (Kuka) Taraf Arshad Khan, Kapurthala and that the land was never reserved during consolidation for common purposes, therefore, respondent No.3 has rightly been held to be owner of the suit land.

¶19

We find no merit in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶20

( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE

¶21

( NIRMAL YADAV) JUDGE

¶22

November 10, 2006 mohan

Gram Panchayat v. Joint Development Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gram Panchayat v. Joint Development Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parbhu Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Sabha Chand Vs State of Hry. and Ors.

Mewa Singh and Ors. Vs Divisional Canal Officer & Ors.

Kamla Devi and Anr. Vs State of Hry. etc.

Fatehjit Singh and Others Vs Director Land Record and Others

Sudhir Kumar Vs State of Pb. & Ors.