Petitioner challenged orders vesting disputed land in Gram Panchayat. Court held land created by cut during consolidation vests in Panchayat for management. Petitioner failed to prove land wasn't reserved for common purposes. Writ of certiorari dismissed.
Petitioner's writ of certiorari dismissed with no order as to costs.
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.
CWP No.11363 of 2010
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.11363 of 2010 Date of Decision:05.10.2012
Saroop Singh ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL
Present : Mr.J.R.Mittal, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Kashmir Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.P.C.Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondents No.1 and 3.
Mr.A.S.Virk, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
RAJIVE BHALLA, J
The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing orders dated 26.07.2007 and 11.11.2009, passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Nawanshahar and the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, respectively, whereby they have held that the land, in dispute, vests in the Gram Panchayat.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a proprietor and is in possession of land measuring 34 kanals 0 marla bearing Khewat No.82, Khatauni No.152 and Khasra No.36 min. The land, in dispute, is described as “Mushtarka Malkaan Va Deegar
CWP No.11363 of 2010
-2-
Haqdaran Hasab Paimana Haqiat” and as it is not used much less reserved, for any common purpose, during consolidation, it does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has been in possession of the land, in dispute, since prior to 1950 and, therefore, the land, in dispute, does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. It is also submitted that the Collector and the Commissioner have ignored pleadings, the revenue record and have, thus, wrongly held that as the land was created during consolidation by applying a pro-rata cut on the holdings of proprietors, it vests in the Gram Panchayat.
Counsel for respondent No.4-Gram Panchayat submits that as, admittedly, the land, in dispute, was created during consolidation, by applying a pro-rata cut on the holdings of proprietors and reserved for common purposes of the village panchayat and other common purposes, the petitioner whether as proprietor or otherwise, has no right to remain in possession much less assert his ownership. It is further argued that the petitioner has not adduced any evidence to prima-facie establish that the land was not reserved or earmarked for any common purpose.
We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders and find no reason whether in fact or in law to accept the petition or to issue the writ, as prayed.
Admittedly, the land, in dispute, was created after applying a pro-rata cut on the holdings of proprietors in accordance with
CWP No.11363 of 2010
-3-
Sections 18 and 23-A of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 and Rule 16(ii) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Rules, 1949 . The land, so created, vests in a Gram Panchayat for management and control though ownership continues to vest in proprietors. The vesting of possessory title in a Gram Panchayat disentitles any person much less a proprietor to claim possession of the land or to claim that as he is in possession as a proprietor, the Gram Panchayat has no right, title or interest in such land. The petitioner's plea that the land, in dispute, was not reserved for any common purpose during consolidation, remains unsubstantiated for want of any material much less any evidence to prove this fact. On 18.07.2012, counsel for the petitioner prayed for time to produce prima-facie material to show that the land, in dispute, was not reserved or earmarked for any common purpose. Counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that the petitioner is not in possession of any material as would prove that the land, in dispute, was not reserved or earmarked for any common purpose, during consolidation. We would at this stage like to clarify that it is only such land as is reserved or earmarked for any common purpose that is recorded as Jumla Mushtarka Malkan or Mushtarka Malkan. The land is, admittedly, Mushtarka Malkan. The petitioner, therefore, has no right to allege that the Gram Panchayat has no right, title or interest in the land, in dispute.
CWP No.11363 of 2010
-4-
As a consequence, findings recorded in the impugned
orders are affirmed and the writ petition is dismissed with no order as
to costs.
[ RAJIVE BHALLA ] JUDGE
05.10.2012 [ REKHA MITTAL ] shamsher JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether land created during consolidation by applying a pro-rata cut vests in the Gram Panchayat for management and control.
Whether a proprietor in possession of land reserved for common purposes can claim ownership or possession.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Saroop Singh
State of Punjab
Others
Rajive Bhalla
Rekha Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
