Dismissed

Sadhu Singh etc. v. Director Rural Development & Panchayat Department & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Feb 2013CWP/10014/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash orders passed in summary proceedings regarding disputed land. The bench affirmed the orders, noting that the petitioners failed to prove the land did not vest in the Gram Panchayat while a title dispute under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 remained pending. Liberty was granted to seek protection of poss

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders affirmed; writ petition dismissed with liberty to file application in pending Section 11 proceedings for protection of possession.

Sadhu Singh etc. Vs Director Rural… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CWP No.10014 of 2012

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.10014 of 2012 Date of decision: 05.02.2013

¶5

Sadhu Singh and another

¶6

..... Petitioners

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Director Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab and others ..... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL

¶10

Present : Mr.G.S.Nagra, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr.Rajinder Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondents No.1 and 2.

¶12

Mr.A.S.Gill, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

¶13

¶14

RAJIVE BHALLA, J.(ORAL)

¶15

The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ of certiorari, quashing orders dated 23.12.2010 and 11.11.2011, passed by the District Development & Panchayat Officer-cum-Collector, Jalandhar and the Director, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab-cum-Commissioner, respectively.

¶16

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the land, in dispute, does not belong to the Gram Panchayat as it was in possession of the petitioners as proprietors, prior to 26.01.1950. In support of this argument, counsel for the petitioners refers to jamabandi for the year 1951-52. It is prayed that as a petition, filed under Section 11 of the

¶17

CWP No.10014 of 2012

¶18

-2-

¶19

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “1961 Act”), raising a question of title, is pending consideration before the District Development & Panchayat Officercum-Collector, Jalandhar, the dispossession of the petitioners may be stayed.

¶20

Counsel for the Gram Panchayat, respondent No.3, submits that the land, in dispute, is recorded as Panchayat Deh and, therefore, vests in the Gram Panchayat. The petitioners have not been able to produce any revenue document showing that khasra numbers referred to in the petition, were in cultivating possession of the petitioners prior to 26.01.1950. The jamabandi for the year 1951-52 relates to the proprietary land-holdings of the petitioners and not to the common land of the village. It is prayed that as impugned orders do not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or of law, the writ petition should be dismissed.

¶21

We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders and in the absence of any tangible evidence, to record a finding that the land, in dispute, is anything other than Shamilat Deh, have no hesitation in affirming the orders passed in summary proceedings by recording, our prima-facie opinion, that the petitioners have not been able to prove that the land, in dispute, does not vest in the Gram Panchayat. The land, in dispute, is, admittedly, recorded as Panchayat Deh and the petitioners are recorded in its possession. The question whether the land, in dispute, vests or does not vest in the

¶22

CWP No.10014 of 2012

¶23

-3-

¶24

Gram Panchayat, is, statedly, pending adjudication before the Collector in a petition filed under Section 11 of the 1961 Act.

¶25

In this view of the matter, the impugned orders are affirmed and the writ petition is dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioners to file an appropriate application in proceedings pending under Section 11 of the 1961 Act for protection of their possession.

¶26

[ RAJIVE BHALLA ] JUDGE

¶27

[ REKHA MITTAL ] JUDGE

¶28

05.02.2013 shamsher

Sadhu Singh etc. v. Director Rural Development & Panchayat Department & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadhu Singh etc. v. Director Rural Development & Panchayat Department & 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

Gram Panchayat Murajwala Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Dharamvir Sharma Vs Ut of Chandigarh

Amra Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ram Sarup and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Prem Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Ashok Kumar Vs Director, Rural Dev. & Panchayats, Pb. & Ors.