Allowed

Jagir Singh v. the Collector Hissar and Other

Punjab & Haryana HC16 May 2012CWP/4153/1988

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two connected writ petitions regarding land eviction under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act. The Court held that land recorded as Shamilat Patti used for self-cultivation by individual co-sharers in revenue records was not Shamilat Deh. Consequently, an eviction application filed by the Gram Panchayat was not maintainable, and the impugned orders were quashed without

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were allowed and the impugned orders seeking eviction were quashed without any order as to costs.

Jagir Singh Vs the Collector Hissar and Other — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No.4153 of 1988 CWP No.6944 of 2011

¶2

[ 1 ]

¶3

::::::

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

(1) CWP No.4153 of 1988 Date of decision:16.05.2012 Jagir Singh (deceased) through his L.Rs. ...Petitioner Vs. The Collector Hisar and another ...Respondents

¶6

(2) CWP No.6944 of 2011 Date of decision:16.05.2012 Smt. Surjit Kaur and others ...Petitioners Vs. Gram Panchayat Bahmanwala and others ...Respondents

¶7

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

¶8

Present: Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate, for Mr. S.S.Godara, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶9

Mr. Praveen Bhadu, Advocate, for the respondent Gram Panchayat. *****

¶10

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.

¶11

We are disposing of CWP No.4153 of 1988 and CWP No.6944 of 2011 together as both have arisen in respect of the same land, from an application filed under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (as applicable to Haryana) [for short “1961 Act”]. However, for the sake of convenience facts are

¶12

[ 2 ]

¶13

CWP No.4153 of 1988 CWP No.6944 of 2011

¶14

::::::

¶15

being taken from CWP No.4153 of 1988.

¶16

In brief, the Gram Panchayat filed an application under Section 7 of the 1961 Act, for eviction of Jagir Singh from land measuring 31 Kanals 08 Marlas, comprised in Khasra No.143/18/2 (3-10), 23(8-0), 155/3(8-0), 8(7-14) and 13(3-18), situated at village Bahamanwala, Tehsil Ratia, District Hisar.

¶17

The Assistant Collector 1^st Grade, Fatehabad, dismissed the application on 14.03.1986, but the Collector reversed that order on 21.10.1986. The order of the Collector dated 21.10.1986 has been assailed in CWP No.4153 of 1988, in which following order was passed on 19.05.1988:

¶18

“Contends that the land being shamlat patti and not being put to use for common purposes for the benefits of the village community, as per the revenue record, was not shamlat deh and, thus, the petitioner could not be ejected.

¶19

Admitted. Stay dispossession of the petitioner till further orders.”

¶20

The Gram Panchayat filed another application under Section 7 of the Act during pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, which was allowed on 20.11.2009, appeal was dismissed on 25.03.2010 and during pendency of the revision, Jagir Singh died on

¶21

CWP No.4153 of 1988 CWP No.6944 of 2011

¶22

[ 3 ]

¶23

::::::

¶24

12.05.2010, but the revision petition was dismissed on 16.11.2010.

¶25

The legal heirs of Jagir Singh have preferred CWP No.6944 of 2011, which has been set down for hearing with the present writ petition vide order dated 11.01.2012.

¶26

Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as per jamabandi for the year 1944-45, Jagir Singh's father Phuman Singh was in possession of land, as a co-sharer of land, recorded as “Shamilat Patti Jattan”. However, ownership of the land in dispute was changed, under the instructions of the State Government, from “Shamilat Patti Jattan” to Gram Panchayat vide mutation No.2980 sanctioned on 03.02.1970. It is further submitted that as per jamabandi for the year 1944-45 (Ex.D1), the land in dispute is recorded in the ownership of “Shamilat Patti Jattan” and in the column of cultivation, it is recorded as “self-cultivation of Phuman Singh, Guljari, Bhajna, as co-sharers in equal shares”.

¶27

In the jamabandi for the year 1959-60 (Ex.D2), the entry in the column of ownership is the same and in the column of cultivation, it is recorded as self-cultivation of co-sharers. It is submitted that averments, made in para No.7 of CWP No.4153 of 1988, have been admitted as a matter of record, in the reply filed by District Development and Panchayat Officer, Fatehabad.

¶28

Counsel for the petitioners has further contended that if the

¶29

CWP No.4153 of 1988 [ 4 ] CWP No.6944 of 2011

¶30

::::::

¶31

land is recorded as “Shamilat Patti Jattan” in the column of ownership as per jamabandi for the year 1944-45, then it does not vest in the Gram Panchayat, in terms of Section 2(g)(v) of the 1961 Act, which provides that the land, described in the revenue records as shamilat, taraf, pattis, pannas, and thola and not used according to revenue records for the benefit of the village community or a part thereof or for common purposes of the village, does not vest in the Shamilat Deh. It is submitted that the entry in the jamabandi for the year 1944-45 (Ex.D1) shows that the land in dispute is recorded in the column of ownership as “Shamilat Patti Jattan” and in possession of the predecessors-ininterest of Jagir Singh, namely, his father Phuman Singh, as a co-sharer, meaning thereby that it was not being put to use, partly or wholly, for the benefit of the village community or for any common purposes of the village.

¶32

Counsel for the respondent-Gram Panchayat has vehemently argued that the land in dispute has been mutated in the name of Gram Panchayat on 03.02.1970, under the instructions issued by the State Government, in terms of the provisions of the Act and as such, the petitioners have no concern whatsoever with the land in dispute. It is also contended that the learned Collector has rightly observed that since the land has been given on lease to the petitioners, therefore, they are in unauthorized possession and are liable to be

¶33

CWP No.4153 of 1988 CWP No.6944 of 2011

[ 5 ]

::::::

evicted.

We have heard counsel for the parties in detail and have perused the record.

¶38

There is no denial to the averments of para No.7 of CWP No.4153 of 1988, which contains entries regarding the land, in dispute, extracted from the documents Ex.D1 & Ex.D2, available on record. In the column of ownership of jamabandi for the year 1944-45, the ownership of “Shamilat Patti Jattan” is recorded and in the column of cultivation, the self cultivation of Phuman Singh as co-sharer is recorded. Phuman Singh happens to be the father of Jagir Singh. The question, thus, arises as to whether such kind of land vests in the Gram Panchayat in terms of Section 2(g)(3) of the 1961 Act?

¶39

Shamilat, taraf, patti, panna and thola, would be included in Shamilat Deh, in terms of Section 2(g)(3) of the 1961 Act, if it is being used, as per revenue records, for the benefit of the village community or a part thereof or for the common purposes of the village and would not be included in the Shamilat Deh in terms of Section 2(g) (v) of the 1961 Act if it is not used, according to the revenue records, for the benefit of the village community or a part thereof or for common purposes of the village.

¶40

In the present case, the land, in dispute, as per jamabandi for the year 1944-45, is recorded as “Shamilat Patti Jattan”, but in the

¶41

CWP No.4153 of 1988 [ 6 ] CWP No.6944 of 2011

¶42

::::::

¶43

column of cultivation, it is recorded in the self-cultivation of Phuman Singh, a co-sharer, which means that it was not being used for the benefit of the village community or for any common purposes so as to include it within the definition of Shamilat Deh in terms of Section 2(g)(3) of the 1961 Act. The Gram Panchayat has not placed, before authorities under the Act or before us, any evidence or material to show that the land was used for common purposes. We are, therefore, satisfied that because as per entry in the jamabandi for the year 1944-45 (Ex.D1), the land is not Shamilat Deh in terms of Section 2(g)(v) of the 1961 Act and, as such, the application under Section 7 of the 1961 Act, filed by the Gram Panchayat, seeking eviction of the petitioners, was not maintainable. The mere fact that a mutation may have been sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat is immaterial as a mutation is a mere fiscal entry that neither confers nor divests a party of title.

¶44

In view of the above discussion, the present writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are hereby quashed, though without any order as to costs.

¶45

(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE

¶46

(RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE

¶47

16.05.2012 vinod*

Jagir Singh v. the Collector Hissar and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagir Singh v. the Collector Hissar and Other

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

Lovely Kumar Vs State of Pb.

Aartia Association Sultanpur Lodhi Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Santokh Singh etc. Vs State of Punjab etc.

Gurnam Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Nirmla Devi Vs State of Punjab and Another

Ajit Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.