The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash an order rejecting a claim for land ownership under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act.
Writ petition dismissed; impugned order allowing the Collector’s finding upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5244 OF 2009 :{ 1 }:
I N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 01, 2009
Avtar Singh and others
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigrh and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
PRESENT: Mr. Arun Takhi, Advocate, for the petitioners.
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioners are aggrieved against the order passed by the Authority rejecting the application filed by the petitioners under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”). Prayer accordingly is made to quash the impugned order (Annexure P-8).
On 21.4.2003, the petitioners filed an application under Section 11 of the Act, seeking declaration that they are Khewatdar of the village and, thus, owners in possession of the land described in the application.
Notice was issued to the Gram Panchayat, which appeared and raised objection even to the maintainability of the
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5244 OF 2009 :{ 2 }:
application. The Gram Panchayat pointed out that the land in question was under the possession and control of the Panchayat. This was stated to be a Shamlat Deh, as per the revenue record. Gram Panchayat was statedly using this land for common purposes of the village and had also been leasing out the land from time to time.
The parties were given time to lead evidence in support of their respective stand. On 27.4.2005, ADC-cum-Collector, Rupnagar, however, held that the petitioners failed to prove the title as they could not show that their possession was prior to 26.1.1950. The counsel for the petitioners submit that the Collector had failed to consider the law and facts in proper perspective and has returned a wrong finding. It is claimed that the petitioners were required to prove that the land in question is a Bachat land and this is established from jamabandi for the year 1998-99. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Collector are impugned.
While rejecting the prayer of the petitioners, the Collector also noticed that earlier one Prem Singh had filed a petition, which was decided on 8.11.2000. It was held that the Gram Panchayat was the owner of the property in question. Prem Singh was one of the applicant in the present application as well. The counsel for the petitioners points out that this petition was not concerning the land, which is in issue in the instant application now decided. It is also stated that Prem Singh has already died and his L.Rs have not joined as a co-petitioners. The petitioners had filed an appeal against this order which was dismissed on 30.1.2008 and hence, the present writ petition.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5244 OF 2009 :{ 3 }:
Though the learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated his submissions to challenge the impugned order but has not referred to any material and documents on record in support of his plea. The Commissioner while rejecting the appeal has found that land was given on auction on yearly basis by the Gram Panchayat. The sale proceeds were being deposited with the Gram Panchayat funds. It is in this context observed that the petitioners failed to prove their possession over the land from 26.1.1950. The finding further is that the petitioners were lessees over this land as per the auction proceedings and, thus, could not claim ownership rights, when they had taken this land on lease from Gram Panchayat. Reference is then made to the petition filed by Prem Singh, which was also decided in favour of the Gram Panchayat, which was found to be owner of this property. The petitioners also could not show any evidence on record, indicating that they are original Khewatdar of the village and, thus, had a share as claimed. In view of this finding of fact, which could not be seriously disputed before me, the case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is not made out.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
( RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE
April 01, 2009 khurmi
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court should interfere with the Collector's order rejecting the petitioners' claim to ownership land on fixed date of possession.
Whether the petitioners can claim ownership rights over the land when it was auctioned and leased by the Gram Panchayat.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Avtar Singh and others
Joint Development Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigrh and others
Ranjit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
