Petitioners challenged an order setting aside a claim for possession of common village land under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961. The court dismissed the writ petition as it held the land belonged to the Gram Panchayat based on revenue records.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 21722 of 2011 Date of Decision: November 23, 2011
Sujan Singh and others.
…Petitioners
Versus
Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab and others.
…Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH.
Present: Mr. Manjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Paramjeet Singh, J.
Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution for India for quashing of order dated 14.02.2011 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Commissioner whereby order dated 27.02.1998 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Collector under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been set aside in appeal.
The brief facts of this case are that the petitioners filed a petition under Section 11 of the Act claiming that they are in continuous cultivating possession of total land measuring 101 Bighas 5 Biswas for more than 55 years i.e. prior to 1947-48. The petitioners have averred that prior to the petitioners, their predecessors-in-interest were cultivating the land in question and after their death, the petitioners are cultivating the land in
2
CWP No. 21722 of 2011
question. The petitioners have also admitted the fact that the land in question was Banjar Qadim and was not levelled and unfit for cultivation. After spending huge amount, they have made it cultivable. In the jamabandi for the year 1947-48, the land has been described as “Shamlat Deh Hasab Hissas Mundraja Sajra Nasab” and it had never been auctioned by the Gram Panchayat nor have been used for common purposes and never used for the welfare of the village Community. It is also averred by the petitioners that the petitioners had never paid any Chakota, Tax, Rent or Batai to any one with respect to the land in question and their possession is prior to the commencement of the Act and the same is proved from the revenue record. As such, the land does not fall within the definition of Section 2(g) of the Act.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at length and have perused the record with his assistance.
Admitted facts are to the effect that the land is recorded in the jamabandi for the year 1951-52 as “Shamlat Deh Hasab Hissas Mundraja Sajra Nasab” and in the cultivation column, entries are recorded as “Maqbuza Malkaan” and the land has been shown in the jamabandies from 1955-56 to 1963-64 as “Aavi”. Thereafter, in Jamabandies for the years 1969-70 upto 1979-80, the land has been shown as “Nehri, Aavi and Bairani” and in the jamabandies for the years 1984-85 upto 1994-95, the same has been described as “Chahi”.
Reading of the revenue record i.e. Jamabandi for the year 1955-56 (Annexure P/7) indicates that the ownership is shown as “Shamlat Deh” and this entry is continuous in the subsequent jamabandies. Even in the earlier jamabandi for the
3
CWP No. 21722 of 2011
year 1947-48 (Annexure P/1), this was recorded as “Shamlat Deh”.
The Commissioner after appreciating the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that the Gram Panchayat is owner of the land in question and the petitioners have failed to prove that the disputed land falls in any of the exceptions mentioned in Section 2(g) of the Act. Furthermore, the petitioners have failed to prove that they are in individual, cultivating continuous possession of the disputed land on or before 26.01.1950. The findings of fact recorded by the Commissioner in appeal are that the Collector has completely ignored the provisions of the Act and the settled law. The finding is also to the effect that the Collector did not look into the revenue record, rather, relied upon on the oral version of the petitioners. The Commissioner has rightly declared that the Gram Panchayat as owner of the suit land measuring 133 Bighas and 8 Biswas.
In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed
being devoid of merit.
(PARAMJEET SINGH) JUDGE
November 23, 2011 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkd JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the disputed land falls within the exceptions under Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961.
Whether the petitioners prove continuous cultivating possession of the land prior to 26.01.1950.
Whether the Commissioner's order setting aside the Collector's order is liable to be quashed.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sujan Singh and others
Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab and others
Satish Kumar Mittal
Paramjeet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
