Allowed

Kirpal Singh v. Director Rural Development & Panchayats Deptt. Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Dec 2022CWP/11167/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed orders by the Collector and Appellate Authority dismissing a petition under the Punjab Village Common Lands Act. The Court found a gross miscarriage of justice due to non-framing of issues on adverse possession and joint disposal of distinct cases lacking application of mind. A remand was directed for separate fresh proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Quashed and set aside the orders dated 29.5.2012 and 5.9.2014. Directed the Collector to frame issues, add parties, permit evidence, and pass fresh separate decisions within a year.

Kirpal Singh Vs Director Rural Development… — Quashing and FIR | Punjab & Haryana HC (2022)

¶1

CWP-11167-2015

¶2

-1-

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

CWP No. 11167 of 2015 Reserved on: 14.12.2022 Date of Decision: 19.12.2022

Kirpal Singh

.....Petitioner

Versus

Director, Rural Development and Panchayats Department Punjab and others

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

¶11

Present: Mr. Vikas Mehsempuri, Advocate with Mr. G.S.Dhillon, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Maninder Singh Sr. DAG, Punjab.

¶13

Mr.S.S.Tiwana, Advocate for the respondent-Gram Panchayat.

¶14

¶15

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

¶16

Factual background

¶17

One Kirpal Singh instituted a petition against the Gram Panchayat concerned. The above petition became constituted under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, (for short 'the Act'). The claim made therein was qua the petitioner being declared owner in possession of the land, comprised in khewat No. 63, khatauni No. 141, killa No. 13//6(8-0), 15(8-0), 16(8-0), 25(8-0), 12//11(8-0), 20(8-0), 21(8-0) total measuring 56 kanals, 0 marla, situtated at village Diyagarh, Tehsil and Distrtict Patiala. The above claim became rested upon the factum, that prior GURPREET SINGH 2022.12.21 15:10 to 26.1.1950, and, upto the relevant stage, the petitioner with an animus I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

¶18

CWP-11167-2015 -2-

¶19

possidendi, hence, holding open hostile possession of the petition land. He also further asserted that the above open hostile possession of the petition land, was within the knowledge of the entire village. Consequently, he claimed that he has become owner of the petition land through adverse possession. The secondary contention, which was raised by the petitioner, in the petition was that, the said land was never reserved for any village common purpose, and, that it was not amenable for being vested in the Gram Panchayat concerned.

¶20

The above contentions in the petition were resisted, and, contested by the respondents. The respondents claimed, that in the jamabandis commencing from the year 1958, and ending upto the year 2008-09, the petition land has been described as shamlat deh. Therefore, it became vested in the panchayat deh.

¶21

Order of the Deputy Director, Village Development and Panchayat Patiala as comprised in Annexure P-2

¶22

The competent authority concerned, after assessing the revenue

¶23

records relating to the petition land, as, commencing from the year 1958 and lasting upto the year 2008-2009, made a decision on 29.5.2012 hence declining relief to the petitioner. The reason which became assigned by the competent authority to dismiss the petition (supra), became grooved, in the factum, that though the petitioner had raised a contention that, his ancestors had made a purchase from persons, who were recorded in the revenue records, rather to be holding cultivating possession of the petition land, but since the above plea remained unproven, through placing on record any sale deed, as purportedly became executed nor his placing on record any consequent therewith order of mutation. Resultantly, the revenue officer concerned, came to a conclusion that the above plea remained unproven,

¶24

GURPREET SINGH 2022.12.21 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

¶25

CWP-11167-2015 -3-

¶26

hence leading him to dismiss the petition (supra).

¶27

Moreover, a further conclusion also became recorded in Annexure P-2, that since the petitioner remained completely unsuccessful in further proving, through adduction of cogent evidence qua his with an animus possidendi, rather holding cultivating possession of the petition land prior to the year 1950. Thus, an inference became drawn, that the plea of acquisition of title or perfection of title through adverse possession, as reared by the petitioner, also remaining unsuccessfully pleaded. Moreover, the competent authority concerned, through a common order dated 29.5.2012, dismissed all the petitions, instituted before him, under Section 11 of the Act.

¶28

Decision of the Appellate Authority on Appeal No. 251 of 2012

¶29

The aggrieved petitioner preferred an Appeal No. 251 of 2012, against the order, as comprised in Annexure P-2, before the Appellate Authority concerned. The Appellate Authority concerned, though referred to the petitioner's pleading, unfolding that prior to the year 1950, he has been in cultivating possession of the petition land, and, also referred to his further pleading, that he has acquired title to the suit land through adverse possession. However, the learned Appellate Authority concerned, did not record any findings in respect of the validity of the above latter plea. Moreover, the Appellate Authority concerned, proceeded to through a common order, made on the above appeal, hence proceeded to dismiss the apposite appeal, besides also dismissed the connected appeals of all the aggrieved, whereagainst CWP No. 11167 of 2015, CWP No. 13006 of 2016, and, CWP No. 13068-2016, hence became instituted before this Court.

¶30

GURPREET SINGH 2022.12.21 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

¶31

CWP-11167-2015

¶32

-4-

¶33

Reasons for accepting the petition and setting aside andrejecting the concurrently made orders against the petitioner

¶34

by both the authorities below

¶35

Though, the petitioner may have not been able to aptly establish his claim qua his holding a valid title to the petition land, on the basis of his purchasing it from the land owners. In addition, even if a contradictory thereto plea became raised by the petitioner, appertaining to his acquiring title to the petition land through adverse possession. Moreover when, as above stated, the above plea became rested on the factum, qua the petitioner claiming adverse possession qua the writ land or his even asserting adverse possession thereons of his predecessor(s)-in-interest, hence commencing prior to the year 1950. Thus, it was yet contended, that the application thereons of the apposite statutory vesting provisions, did become ousted or did save the petition land from vestment in the panchayat deh. The above contention was raised, irrespective of the petition land being described as shamilat deh, and, was also raised irrespective of the fact, that the petitioner had unsuccessfully pleaded, that his ancestors purchased it from some of the persons, who were reflected to be in cultivating possession of the writ land.

¶36

Be that as it may, the apposite ablest proof in respect of acquisition of title by the petitioner, or by his predecessor-in-interest, through the averred adverse possession, as, commencing prior to to the year 1950, thus saving the petition land from vestment in the panchayat deh, rather would have emanated, only when issues in respect of the above plea, became struck by the Collector concerned, and, whereafter cogent evidence in respect thereof became adduced, rather to bely the presumption of truth enjoyed by the revenue entries, as occurring in the relevant jamabandis. However, a close scrutiny of the records discloses, that despite the above

¶37

GURPREET SINGH 2022.12.21 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

¶38

CWP-11167-2015 -5-

¶39

acerbic contest emerging inter se the contesting litigants, yet the learned Collector concerned, not deeming it fit to frame any issue in respect thereof, nor obviously any evidence became adduced by the petitioner, to substantiate the above claim, that he had become owner in possession of the petition land through adverse possession, given his or his predecessor(s)-ininterest, both rather adversely cultivating the petition land prior to the year 1950. The Appellate Authority concerned may have also, on the above ground taken to remand the lis to the Collector, for a afresh decision being made thereons, but with a direction that only after the apposite issue being struck, as appertaining to the validity of the plea relating to the acquisition of title through adverse possession by the petitioner qua the petition land, and, thereafter evidence being permitted to be adduced thereons, by the litigants concerned. However, the learned Appellate Authority concerned, proceeded to dismiss the petition, and also obviously affirmed, and, maintained the order of dismissal, as made by the learned Collector concerned, on the petitioner's claim, as, raised in the petition filed under Section 11 of the Act.

¶40

Effect of non framing of issues and its consequences

¶41

The result of non-framing of any issue, in respect of the contested fact, relating to acquisition of title by adverse possession by the petitioner on the petition land, as became rested on the apposite hostile possession thereons, commencing from the year 1950, is that, the petitioner became completely precluded from leading cogent oral or documentary evidence, to rebut the presumption of truth, as carried by the revenue entries appertaining to the petition land.

¶42

GURPREET SINGH 2022.12.21 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

¶43

CWP-11167-2015

¶44

-6-

¶45

Be that as it may, even though in the jamabandis, appertaining to the petition land, as commencing from the year 1968-69, and, ending upto the year 2008-09, in the column of ownership, the petition land has been described as shamlat deh hasab rasad zar khewat, and, also the persons in cultivating possession thereof, are also reflected thereins besides such persons also may be the predecessor(s)-in-interest of the petitioner. Moreover, even though the persons reflected in the column of cultivation, are shown to make cultivation of the petition land, without payment of rent, besides have been described as Basra Malkan. Therefore, if in the above revenue records relating to the petition land, even if any of such person(s) was his predecessor(s)-in-interest, thus, rather may have ably conferred good title on the petition land, upon the petitioner, and, thereupon the said land became prima facie saved from vestment in the panchayat deh. However, the above aspect has remained completely undealt with, nor has been adjudicated, whereas, an adjudication thereon was most imperative to enable the petitioner to irrespective of the above plea(s), to may be hence claim a valid title to the petition land.

¶46

Nonetheless but yet even the claim for adverse possession, which has been raised by the petitioner, when relates to said adverse possession commencing prior to the year 1950, did require, that the relevant issue(s) be framed in respect thereof, and, also evidence being permitted to be adduced thereons by the contesting litigants, besides subsequently a fresh decision being made on the apposite lis, by the Collector concerned. The above order of remand by the Appellate Authority would have assumingly ensured the termination of the apposite lis, in the most judicious, and, legally apt manner. However, the above has not been done, which has GURPREET SINGH 2022.12.21 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

¶47

-7-

¶48

CWP-11167-2015

¶49

resulted in gross miscarriage of justice.

¶50

For undoing the miscarriage of justice, as caused, it is deemed fit to quash, and, set aside the concurrently made orders by both the revenue authority concerned, and, by the Appellate Authority concerned.

¶51

Final order

¶52

What is the most startling aspect of this petition, is that, both the Collector concerned, as well as the Appellate Authority concerned, respectively, proceeded to make a joint decision on the apposite petitions, and, also on the apposite appeals, whereas, all the petitions, besides the appeals concerned, carried a completely different cause(s) of action, and, also completely uncommon revenue records. Therefore, even the above joint decision, as made respectively on the petitions, by the Collector concerned, and, latter also made on the apposite appeals, by the Appellate Authority concerned, do also suffer from a gross non-application of mind qua the records relevant to the apposite controversy in all cases, which are but uncommon, and, dissimilar to each. For the above reason also, this Court deems it fit to quash, and, set aside the concurrent orders, as respectively made by the Collector concerned, and, the latter affirmed by the Appellate Authority concerned. Consequently, the instant petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 29.5.2012 (Annexure P-2), and, dated 5.9.2014 (Annexure P-4), are quashed, and, set aside. The Collector concerned, is directed to after, at the instance of the litigants concerned, an apposite motion is caste, hence ensure the making of additions of all just, and, necessary parties, and, thereafter after receiving their replies to the petition, to strike all the relevant issues, and, thereafter shall permit all the litigants concerned, to adduce their respective evidence(s) thereons.

¶53

GURPREET SINGH 2022.12.21 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

¶54

-8-

¶55

CWP-11167-2015

¶56

Subsequently, the Collector concerned, shall make a fresh decision, in accordance with law, upon the relevant lis, through separate orders being made on each case.

¶57

The above exercise be completed within a year hereafter.

¶58

(SURESHWAR THAKUR) JUDGE

¶59

(KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE December 19, 2022 Gurpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : Yes

¶60

GURPREET SINGH 2022.12.21 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgement

Kirpal Singh v. Director Rural Development & Panchayats Deptt. Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kirpal Singh v. Director Rural Development & Panchayats Deptt. 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

Sukhwinder Singh @ Bittu Vs State of Punjab

State of Punjab Vs Gurmit Singh

Hakam Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Sandeep Kumar @ Sodhi Vs State of Punjab

Dinesh Kumar Alias Raj Vs State of Punjab

Karam Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.