The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging orders dismissing an application under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961. The Court held that land recorded as 'Shamilat Deh' vested in the Gram Panchayat pursuant to the Pepsu Act, finding no error in the impugned orders.
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.
-1-
CWP No.2717 of 2012 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.2717 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.02.2012
Jagdev Singh and others
..... Petitioners
Versus
Joint Development Commissioner (IRD) and others
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present : Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioners.
RAJIVE BHALLA, J.
This order shall dispose of CWPs No.2717 and 2728 of 2012 as they involve adjudication of common questions of fact and law. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from CWP No.2717 of 2012.
The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing orders dated 28.03.2005 and 28.02.2011, passed by the Collector/Divisional Deputy Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, and the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, dismissing their petition filed under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and their appeal, respectively.
Counsel for the petitioners submits that the land in dispute is bachat land as it was neither earmarked nor utilised for any common purposes. The consolidation authorities, however, committed an error,
-2-
CWP No.2717 of 2012 (O&M)
as during consolidation, they did not return this land to the petitioners. The authorities committed a further error by altering the ownership of land to the name of the Gram Panchayat on the basis of a letter issued by the Government. It is further submitted that as jamabandis from the year 1929 to 1952 record the land as “S hamlat deh hasab hissa kabja arazi ” and in possession of “Makbuza Malqan”, it clearly proves that proprietors were owners and in possession prior to 26.01.1950.
We have heard counsel for the petitioners, perused the paper book, particularly the revenue record appended therewith and the impugned orders.
The petitioners filed an application under Section 11 of the Act, claiming ownership by averring that as the land in dispute is bachat land, it had to be redistributed amongst khewatdars/proprietors of the village but instead a mutation has been wrongly sanctioned in the name of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioners also contended that as the land is S hamlat deh hasab hissa kabja arazi and recorded in possession of maqbuja malkan before 26.1.1950, it does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat disputed the correctness of these averments by averring that as the land is Shamilat Deh and is part of river Ghaggar, it does not vest in the petitioners.
Vide order dated 28.03.2005, the Collector dismissed the petition. An appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, by affirming order passed by the Collector.
CWP No.2717 of 2012 (O&M)
-3-
The argument that land has been wrongly mutated in the name of the Gram Panchayat on the basis of a letter is incorrect. Admittedly, the land in dispute, is Shamilat Deh and, therefore, vests in the Gram Panchayat pursuant to a statutory declaration of vesting made by the Pepsu Village Common Lands Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Pepsu Act'), duly affirmed by the 1961 Act. The expression “S hamlat deh hasab hissa kabja arazi” proves beyond any doubt that the land is ' Shamilat Deh' . The words “ hasab hissa kabja arazi” that succeed the words “ Shamilat Deh ” are superfluous as they refer to the shareholding of the proprietors prior to enactment of the Pepsu Act and the 1961 Act.
The argument that proprietors have been in possession prior to 1950 is belied by the entries in jamabandi which merely record the possession of maqbuja malkan i.e. the proprietary body in common as opposed to cultivating possession as required by Sections 2(g)(iii) and (viii) of the Act. Another argument that as the land is Bachat land, it should be redistributed amongst the proprietors, remains unsubstantiated by reference to any order or document prepared during consolidation.
Before parting with this order, we would like to mention that the land in dispute is recorded as a Gair mumkin ghaggar , a river. Its catchment area is leased by the Mining Department for extraction of minor minerals and the Gram Panchayat receives royalty.
We, therefore, find no reason to hold that the impugned
CWP No.2717 of 2012 (O&M)
-4-
orders suffer, in any manner, from error of law or of jurisdiction as would require interference.
Dismissed.
[ RAJIVE BHALLA ] JUDGE
14.02.2012 [ RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ] shamsher/pc JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned orders dismissing the petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 suffer from error of law or jurisdiction.
Whether land recorded as 'Shamilat Deh' vests in the Gram Panchayat despite prior possession claims.
Whether the consolidation authorities committed an error by mutating land in the name of the Gram Panchayat.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Jagdev Singh and others
Joint Development Commissioner (IRD) and others
Rajive Bhalla
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
