Allowed

Karam Singh & Ors. v. Joint Director Panchayt Cum Comm. Pb & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Jul 2011CWP/5940/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition by quashing an impugned order that set aside a Collector's ruling on land ownership. The court held that the appellate authority erred in clubbing the petitioners' appeal with another involving different facts and failing to consider the petitioners' specific arguments, thereby rendering the order a nullity. The matter was remitted to the Joint Director.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order set aside insofar as it relates to petitioners; matter remitted to Respondent I for fresh decision; court appearance directed.

Karam Singh & Ors. Vs Joint Director Panchayt Cum… — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CWP No.5940 of 1991

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.5940 of 1991 Date of decision:21.07.2011

¶5

Karam Singh and others

¶6

..... Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Joint Director, Panchayats -cum-Commissioner, Punjab and another ..... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

¶10

Present : Mr.Vikram Bali, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

¶12

RAJIVE BHALLA, J. (ORAL)

¶13

The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 15.12.1989, passed by the Additional Director, Panchayats, Punjab (exercising the powers of Commissioner).

¶14

The Gram Panchayat filed separate petitions for ejectment of the petitioners and others under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), claiming that the land in dispute is Shamilat Deh. The petitioners opposed the prayer by pleading that as the land has been in their possession and before them in the possession of their predecessors, before the enactment of Shamilat law, it does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. The petitioners, therefore, filed a petition under Section 11 of the Act, claiming ownership of the land. The Collector-cumDivisional Deputy Director, Panchayats, Patiala, allowed the petition.

¶15

-2-

¶16

CWP No.5940 of 1991

¶17

Aggrieved by this order and by other similar orders, the Gram Panchayat filed appeals. The appeal filed against the petitioners was clubbed with an appeal filed against Gurdial Singh etc. Both appeals were decided together and vide the impugned order, the Additional Director, Panchayats, Punjab, accepted the appeals, set aside orders passed by the Collector-cum-Divisional Deputy Director, Panchayats, Patiala and held that Gram Panchayat is owner of the land in dispute.

¶18

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the land in dispute does not vest in the Gram Panchayat as it was in possession of the petitioners' predecessors prior to the enactment of “Shamilat law” and the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. It is further submitted that mere use of expression “Shamilat Deh” does not confer ownership on the Gram Panchayat and therefore, the Additional Director, Panchayats, Punjab, has committed an error in failing to consider the exceptions carved out to Section 2(g)(1) of the Act. It is further submitted that the petitioners' appeal was clubbed with the appeal filed against Gurdial Singh and another, and though both appeals pertain to the same Gram Panchayat, the arguments raised are entirely different and should, therefore, have been dealt with separately. The impugned order, however, deals with arguments raised by Gurdial Singh and another, alone, as arguments raised by the petitioners have not been discussed much less adverted to.

¶19

No-one is present on behalf of the Gram Panchayat.

¶20

I have heard counsel for the petitioners, perused the

¶21

-3-

¶22

CWP No.5940 of 1991

¶23

pleadings, the impugned order and have no hesitation in holding that the appellate authority has failed to adjudicate the petitioners' case. The Additional Director, Panchayats, Punjab, decided the appeal filed by the petitioners alongwith an appeal titled as Gram Panchayat V/s Gurdial Singh and another. The appellate authority failed to discern that in both appeals ownership is claimed on different facts. The petitioners, place reliance upon the jamabandi for the year 1942-43 to claim exclusion of this land from the definition of Shamilat Deh whereas Gurdial Singh and another, claim relief on different facts. The appellate authority was required to decide the petitioners' case separately or by referring to their facts/arguments. In the absence of consideration of the arguments raised by the petitioners, they have been deprived of due consideration of their pleas and defence. The impugned order is, therefore, a nullity and must, therefore, be set aside.

¶24

In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed, the order dated 15.12.1989 is set aside in so far as it relates to the petitioners and the matter is remitted to the Joint Director, Panchayatscum-Commissioner, Punjab to decide the appeal filed against the petitioners afresh and in accordance with law. No order as to costs.

¶25

Parties are directed to appear before the Joint Director, Panchayats-cum-Commissioner, Punjab, on 02.09.2011.

¶26

21.07.2011 shamsher

¶27

[RAJIVE BHALLA] JUDGE

Karam Singh & Ors. v. Joint Director Panchayt Cum Comm. Pb & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karam Singh & Ors. v. Joint Director Panchayt Cum Comm. Pb & Anr.

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

Haroon Ali Vs Neelam Pardeep Kasni

Mohinder Singh Vs State of Haryan & Ors.

Ashok Kumar Garg & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Om Parkash and Anr. Vs State of Pb.and Ors.

Navneet Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Amandeep Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.