Dismissed

Ranjodh Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Feb 2012CWP/18418/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a writ petition challenging orders under the Punjab Village Common Lands Regulation Act. The Court held that land recorded as "Shamilat Tikka" vests in the Gram Panchayat and rejected the petitioners' unproven claim of prior cultivating possession.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed and the impugned orders dated 15.9.2005 and 20.6.2008 were affirmed.

Ranjodh Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and… — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Writ Petition No. 18418 of 2009 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No. 18418 of 2009 Date of Decision: 16.2.2012

¶4

Ranjodh Singh and others

¶5

..Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Punjab and others.

¶8

..Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

¶10

Present: Mr. J.S.Virk, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr. N.D.S.Mann, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondents no. 1 and 2.

¶12

Mr. R.S.Dhiman, Advocate for respondent no.3.

¶13

RAJIVE BHALLA, J.

¶14

The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ of certiorari setting aside orders dated 15.9.2005 and 20.6.2008 passes by the Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-Collector, Dhar Kalan, District Gurdaspur and the Commissioner, Rural Development and Panchayat, dismissing the petition filed under section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation)Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “1961 Act”) and the appeal, respectively.

¶15

The petitioners filed a petition under section 11 of the 1961 Act, praying for declaration that the land does not belong to the Gram Panchayat as it is recorded as “Shamilat tikka” hasab, rasab, jaddid”, in possession of :Makbuja Malkan” in jambandi for the year

¶16

Civil Writ Petition No. 18418 of 2009 2

¶17

1950-51. The petitioners also claim that a similar mutation with respect to similar land of the same village, which was sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat, was set aside by the Collector on 21.9.1987. The petitioners also contended that as the land is in their continuous cultivating possession before 26.1.1950, it does not vest in the Gram Panchayat.

¶18

The Gram Panchayat contested the petition and claimed that as the land is “Shamilat Tikka” and a forest, it belongs to the Gram Panchayat. Vide order dated 15.9.2005, the Collector dismissed the petition by holding that the land, in dispute, is part of the forest and the petitioners have failed to produce any evidence to prove their ownership. The petitioners filed an appeal. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal by holding that the land is part of a forest and is not cultivating possession of the petitioners.

¶19

Counsel for the petitioners submits that mere mutation of land in the name of the Gram Panchayat, does not confer ownership. The land in dispute is excluded from “Shamilat Deh” as it was in possession of proprietors prior to 1950. It is further submitted that notification dated 5.1.1904 passed by the Forest Department was repealed and as held by this court, the notification does not apply to forest and waste land of the village as it applies to forest and waste land in the Shahpur Tulka, Bungal, Treti and Nagrota Villages of the Kandi Taluka of Pargana Pathankot, District Gurdaspur and the land, therefore, does not vest in the Gram Panchayat.

¶20

Counsel for the Gram Panchayat, on the other hand, submits that the land, in dispute is, admittedly, recorded as “Shamilat

¶21

Civil Writ Petition No. 18418 of 2009 3

¶22

Tikka” and therefore, vests in the Gram Panchayat by virtue of section 2(g)(2) of the 1961 Act. It is further submitted that as the petitioners did not choose to challenge the mutation for more than 30 years, the petition filed under section 11 of the 1961 Act, is barred by limitation.

¶23

We have heard counsel for the parties; perused the impugned orders and the revenue record appended with the paper book.

¶24

A perusal of jamabandi for the year 1950-51, appended as Annexure P-7, reveals that the land is “Hasab rasab shamilat tikka”. Section 2(g)(2) of the 1961 Act provides that land described as “Shamilat Tikka” shall be included in “Shamilat Deh” and reads as follows:

¶25

The petitioners' contention that the land was in their cultivating possession, has not been proved by reference to any evidence, much less a revenue entry. Even otherwise, as the land is a forest, it could not be in cultivating possession of the petitioners or other proprietors before 26.1.1950 at any time thereafter.

¶26

An argument that in a similar case, relating to another parcel of land, the Collector has held that the Gram Panchayat is not the owner, cannot be accepted, as the said order is based upon a different set of facts. The petitioners in that case were able to establish their cultivating possession before 26.1.1950. As regards

¶27

Civil Writ Petition No. 18418 of 2009 4

¶28

the plea that this land is not a forest and the notification applies to land in the adjoining areas, need not detain us as we are not called upon to record an opinion whether the land is or is not a forest. The only dispute before us is whether land, which is described as “Shamilat Tikka”, vests in the Gram Panchayat or the petitioners. The petitioners have not adduced any evidence as to in what manner, the land belongs to them.

¶29

In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the impugned orders are affirmed and the writ petition is dismissed.

¶30

( RAJIVE BHALLA ) JUDGE

¶31

16.2.2012 VK

¶32

( RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ) JUDGE

Ranjodh Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjodh Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab 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

Ramandeep Kaur & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Ajit Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab etc.

Ranjit Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Chanchal Vs Sudhir Kumar

Tota Singh Vs Addl.Director C/H Pb.Etc.

Gram Panchayat Vs Additional Director etc.