Partly allowed

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

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Dec 2015CWP/15982/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petitions in part, setting aside an appellate order under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act. The Court directed the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh within four months after considering relevant jamabandi entries and wajib-ul-arz regarding the petitioners' continuing possession.

What did the court decide?

Appellate order dated 30.05.2013 set aside; Appellate Authority directed to decide the appeal afresh within four months; parties directed to appear on 18.01.2016.

Gurmail Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

[1] Civil Writ Petition No.15982 of 2014 Date of Decision: December 15, 2015

¶3

Gurmail Singh and others ....Petitioners

¶4

versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents [2] Civil Writ Petition No.26459 of 2014

¶5

Hazari Lal and others ....Petitioners

¶6

versus

¶7

State of Punjab and others .....Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI.

¶9

¶10

Present: Mr.Jastej Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Rajesh Bhardwaj, Additional AG, Punjab. Mr.Jasjeet S.Dhaliwal, Advocate, for Mr.H.S.Brar, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

¶11

-.-

¶12

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶13

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶15

¶16

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶17

This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.15982 and 26459 of 2014 as common questions of law and fact are involved in both these petitions.

¶18

For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.15982 of 2014.

¶19

The petitioners assail the orders dated 30.11.2012 and 30.05.2013 (P-4 & P-5 respectively). Vide the first order dated 30.11.2012, the declaratory suit filed by the petitioners under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands

¶20

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.12.22 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶21

[2]

¶22

CWP Nos.15982 and 26459 of 2014

¶23

(Regulation) Act, 1961 (for short, 'the 1961 Act') was dismissed and vide the subsequent order, the Appellate Authority has also turned down their appeal.

¶24

A bare perusal of the appellate order unfolds that the petitioners have been non-suited taking into consideration two factors, namely (i) as per the entries in jamabandies for the years 1961-62 onwards, the land is owned by Nagar Panchayat Deh, i.e., the Gram Panchayat and (ii) the petitioners have failed to prove their individual continuous cultivating possession since 26.01.1950, namely, the cut off date prescribed under the 1961 Act, for exclusion of such land from being declared as shamlat deh.

¶25

The matter was adjourned on 3-4 occasions to enable the parties to place on record the wajib-ul-arz so as to find out the nature of possession or the status re: 'cultivation of land' at the time of preparation of such record. The needful has not been done so far. Nonetheless, it appears that instead of awaiting for the said record, the matter needs to be remanded for re-determination at the hands of Appellate Authority. We say so for the reasons that the petitioners have placed on record jamabandies for the years 1945-46 onwards and the entries in column No.5 thereof are required to be kept in view by the Appellate Authority before forming its opinion. Similarly, the Appellate Authority would summon the wajib-ularz and make reference to the remarks made therein. Thirdly, the status of petitioners' individual cultivating possession as on 26.01.1950 can be determined on the basis of revenue record of the relevant time. Those have not been referred to or considered by the Appellate Authority.

¶26

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.12.22 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶27

[3]

¶28

CWP Nos.15982 and 26459 of 2014

¶29

It is observed that we have consciously not opined on the merits of the above-noticed points least it would cause any prejudice to either of the parties.

¶30

For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed in part; the appellate order dated 30.05.2013 is setaside and the Appellate Authority is directed to decide the appeal afresh in the light of the observations made hereinabove and preferably within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

¶31

Parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on 18.01.2016.

Dasti.

[SURYA KANT]

JUDGE

December 15, 2015 [P.B.BAJANTHRI] mohinder JUDGE

¶36

MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.12.22 11:58 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurmail 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

Yadwinder Pal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Bhajan Singh Vs Director, Land Records of Punjab and Others

Suneeta Sharma Vs Gmada and Ors.

Bhagwan Dass and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ram Sarup @ Ram Saroop & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Rajbir Vs State of Haryana & Ors.