Dismissed

Satnam Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Jul 2013CWP/1336/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed two constitutional writ petitions challenging orders that dismissed title suits filed under Section 13A of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act. The petitioners claimed ownership of land purchased from a vendor who allegedly owned individual shares of shamlat deh vested in the Gram Panchayat. The court found no evidence of specific khasra numbers or possession prior to consolid

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed; leave to file review not granted.

Satnam Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and… — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CWP No. 1336 of 2012 and connected matters

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

Date of decision : 16.7.2013 CWP No. 1336 of 2012

¶6

Satnam Singh and others ........Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State of Haryana and others ....Respondents

¶9

CWP No. 1337 of 2012

¶10

Mahinder Singh ........Petitioner

¶11

Vs.

¶12

State of Haryana and others ....Respondents

¶13

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia

¶14

Present:Mr. Sanjay Majithia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jashanpreet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. D. Khanna, Addl. AG, Haryana Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate, for respondent No. 6

¶15

Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)

¶16

This order shall dispose of two writ petitions bearing No. CWP No. 1336 of 2012 titled as 'Satnam Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others' and CWP No. 1337 of 2012 titled as 'Mahinder Singh v. State of Haryana and others' as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. The facts are being taken from CWP No. 1336 of 2012 for dictating the order.

¶17

This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned orders dated 14.2.2006 (P-6), 23.5.2007 (P-7), 20.5.2009 (P-8)

¶18

Kumar Ashwani 2013.08.01 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

-2-

¶20

CWP No. 1336 of 2012 and connected matters

¶21

and 7.7.2010 (P-9) being illegal, directing the respondents to sanction mutation in favour of the petitioners and from staying dispossession of the petitioners from the land in dispute.

¶22

The petitioners are claiming ownership of 96 kanals and 13 marlas of land, detail of which is given in heading of this writ petition. The above land, it is said, was equal to 64 bighas 6 biswas of land, which the petitioners' predecessor in interest, namely Gokal Singh, purchased from one Ajmer Singh on 19.2.1954 (P-2). Vide that sale deed, besides 64 bighas of land, as referred to above, from individual ownership of Ajmer Singh, Gokal Singh had also purchased 32 bighas and 3 biswas of land. Specific numbers of individual holdings, so purchased from Ajmer Singh, are given in the sale deed, referred to above.

¶23

It is an admitted fact that after purchase of the land, mutation in favour of Gokal Singh was entered only with regard to 32 bighas and 3 biswas of land, which was individual ownership of Ajmer Singh and not with respect to 64 bighas of land, which was purchased vide sale deed, referred to above.

¶24

It is also necessary to mention here that so far as 64 bighas of land, purchased vide above sale deed by Gokal Singh, its khasra numbers were not mentioned. It was only mentioned that the land has been sold out of total shamlat deh land bearing 1891 bighas 16 biswas, falling in khewat No. 9 khatoni No. 12.

¶25

Without getting any mutation sanctioned of particular khasra numbers, it appears that Gokal Singh and thereafter the petitioners, came in possession of land measuring 96 kanals and 13 marlas, which is the land

¶26

Kumar Ashwani 2013.08.01 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

CWP No. 1336 of 2012 and connected matters -3-

¶28

in dispute. It appears that the Gram Panchayat objected to the possession of the petitioners. Then in the year 2003 the petitioners filed an application under Section 13 A of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), as applicable to Haryana, claiming title of the land in dispute.

¶29

Notice of the said application was given to the Gram Panchayat. In reply filed, it was specifically stated that the land claimed by the petitioners, falls in shamlat deh land of the village and the Gram Panchayat is the owner of the same.

¶30

After noting pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Collector for determination :-

¶31

“1. Whether the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit land as KHUD KAST MALKAN AND the entries in column No. IV and V of jamabandi are liable to corrected? OPP

¶32

Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable? OPD

¶33

Whether the plaintiffs have got no locus standi to file the present case? OPD

¶34

Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is hopelessly time barred? OPD

¶35

Whether this Hon'ble Court has got no jurisdiction? OPD

¶36

Relief.”

¶37

Under Issue No.1, it was for the petitioners to prove that they

¶38

are owners of the land in dispute and entries in Columns No. 4 and 5 of jamabandies needs to be corrected, where the land was shown as ownership of the Gram Panchayat. Elaborate evidence was led by both the

¶39

parties and after analysing the same, the Collector dismissed their title suit

¶40

Kumar Ashwani 2013.08.01 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶41

CWP No. 1336 of 2012 and connected matters

¶42

-4-

¶43

on 14.2.2006. Relevant portion of the order reads thus :-

¶44

“Issue No. 1 :

¶45

Since the petitioners have not produced any solid proof regarding the possession of their vendor in particular khasra no. of shamlat land and further possession of which khasra no. was given to them prior to 26.1.1950, hence I am in agreement with the contentions of L.O. That the land in dispute had already been vested in Gram Panchayat prior to consolidation as per law and it is clearly mentioned in the Scheme Istemal that out of the total land, Shamlat land has been vested in the Gram Panchayat as per the order of the Government. The petitioners have not challenged the Scheme Istemal till date. The sale deed produced by the petitioners regarding the purchase of share in shamlat reflects khewat No. 9 as per khatuni in jamabandi for the year 1953-54. What is the share in shamlat of the vendor has not been mentioned in this sale deed. Further the petitioners have not produced jamabandi for the year 1953-54 from which it could be clarified that as to which share out of khasra no. in a khewat has been purchased by them. It seems that this jamabandi has deliberately not been produced by the petitioners. LO in his arguments further stated that the jamabandi for the year 194344 as produced by the petitioners though reflect Maqbuja malkan, but none of the co-sharer is in specific possession of any khasra no. because the entire land is banjar and there is no question of possession over banjar land. In addition to this, there is no question of handing over of possession of any specific khasra no. to the petitioner by his vendor. Hence in the year 1954 when the petitioner purchased the land, there was no question of their specific possession over specific khasra no. in shamlat land being co-sharer. LO in his argument further stated that in the Scheme Istemal, nothing is mentioned regarding the possession of the petitioners as co-

¶46

Kumar Ashwani 2013.08.01 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶47

CWP No. 1336 of 2012 and connected matters

¶48

-5-

¶49

sharer over shamlat land prior to the year 1950 and thus from this, it is clear that they are not in possession as co-sharer. The petitioners have not produced any such evidence to the effect as to on which khasra no. they were in possession prior to consolidation and what was its valuation and valuation type of land was allotted to him in lieu of that possession. As per Forum 46 (khatuni paimaish) the land in dispute has been shown in the ownership and possession of Gram Panchayat at page 193 to 199 and there is no proof available on the file regarding the possession of the petitioners on the numbers prior to consolidation. The petitioners have not produced any solid proof regarding their share in the shamlat. How can a Patwari identify the share of the petitioners when he himself does not know Urdu. Further to identify the share of petitioners, nothing has been mentioned about the revenue record and further no revenue record has been produced. Hence the possession of the petitioners over shamlat land prior to the year 26.1.1950 is not proved nor their share in shamlat is clear. The shamlat land has already been vested in Gram Panchayat as per law even prior to consolidation. So far as the ruling produced by the petitioner is concerned, the same pertains to eviction under Section 7(2) of VCL in which the responsibility to prove their case is on Gram Panchayat whereas the present case has been filed under Section 13A regarding the question of ownership and the responsibility to prove the same is on petitioners because it is settled law that the petitioners have to prove their own case. (The plaintiffs have to stand on their own legs). Hence the entries in the jamabandi regarding ownership are fully correct and there is no necessity of changing the same. Hence on this Issue, the findings are returned in favour of Gram Panchayat and against the petitioners. ISSUE NOS. 2 TO 5 :

¶50

Kumar Ashwani 2013.08.01 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶51

CWP No. 1336 of 2012 and connected matters

¶52

-6-

¶53

Since all these issues are interconnected, hence they are decided jointly. Since the case is being decided on merits, hence keeping in view this fact, no separate finding is required to be given.

¶54

RELIEF :

¶55

Keeping in view the findings recorded above, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief and hence the suit of the petitioner is hereby dismissed. Decree sheet be accordingly prepared. Both the parties shall bear their own expenses.”

¶56

It was noticed by the Collector that land had vested in the Gram Panchayat prior to the consolidation in the village. It was also noticed that in the Consolidation Scheme, to conduct consolidation in the village, it was specifically stated that the shamlat land in the village shall vest in the Gram Panchayat under orders of the Government, which was issued in consonance with the provisions of 1953 Act. It is an admitted fact that the said Scheme was never challenged by the petitioners for the last more than 5 decades. It was also noticed that in the sale deed, which was made basis to claim ownership of the property in dispute, detail of the khasra numbers, which were sold by Ajmer Singh to Gokal Singh, out of the shamlat deh, land was not given. It is also an admitted fact that on the basis of above sale deed, mutation qua the shamlat deh land was never entered in favour of Gokal Singh/the petitioners.

¶57

It has come on record that Ajmer Singh's individual ownership was to the extent of 32 bighas and 3 biswas. There is nothing on record to show that he was owner to the extent of 64 bighas in the shamlat deh land of the village. It was also rightly noticed, by making reference to the

¶58

Kumar Ashwani 2013.08.01 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶59

CWP No. 1336 of 2012 and connected matters -7-

¶60

revenue record, that the petitioners have failed to prove their possession in the land in dispute prior to the year 1950 and the land was under their cultivation. Statement of the Patwari, to prove share of Ajmer Singh in the land, was rightly negatived by stating that it had not made any reference to revenue documents.

¶61

The petitioners went in appeal, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 23.5.2007 (P-7). Revision petition filed by the petitioners before the Commissioner, also met with the same fate. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a review application, which was also dismissed on 7.7.2010. Hence, this writ petition.

¶62

At the time of arguments, counsel for the petitioners has failed to refer any document on record showing that which part of the shamlat deh land was purchased by the petitioners when sale deed (P-1) was executed on 19.2.1964. In that sale deed, except mentioning quantum of the land sold out of the shamlat deh land, no khasra number is mentioned, which was put in possession of the petitioners/their predecessor in interest. It is also on record that on the basis of said sale deed regarding the shamlat deh land, mutation was not ever sanctioned in favour of the petitioners. As per Scheme of consolidation, it is specifically mentioned that the shamlat deh land in the village shall vest in the Gram Panchayat's land. There is nothing on record to show what was share of Ajmer Singh in the shamlat deh land.

¶63

It is an admitted fact that Ajmer Singh was owner of 32 bighas and 3 biswas of land, how he become owner of 64 bighas of land, is a great mystery. Reference has been made to some jamabandi on record to show

¶64

Kumar Ashwani 2013.08.01 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶65

CWP No. 1336 of 2012 and connected matters -8-

¶66

that the petitioners were in possession of land in dispute after its purchase. In those jamabandies, Gram Panchayat is shown as owner of the land in dispute. These entries are continuing since from the last more than 60 years and were also in existence before conclusion of consolidation proceedings in the village. The petitioners knowing fully well that the share in shamlet deh land was not mutated in their favour, in the land so purchased by them, did not lay challenge to the mutations proceedings.

¶67

In view of the facts noted above, no case is made out to

¶68

interfere in the orders impugned.

¶69

Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed.

¶70

(Jasbir Singh) Judge

¶71

(G.S. Sandhawalia) Judge

¶72

16.7.2013 Ashwani

¶73

Kumar Ashwani 2013.08.01 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Satnam Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satnam Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana 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

(O&M) Hari Singh Vs Gram Panchayat Dhani Bhakran etc.

Resham Singh Vs State of Punjab

Kailash Devi Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Bachan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Nirmal Kaur Vs Director General of Prisons & Anr.

Shingara Singh and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.