Balbir Singh and Others Vs Joint Development Commissioner and Others

The present petitioners initially instituted Civil Writ Petition No.22399 of 2023 before this Court, whereins, they claimed relief qua the quashing of the dismissal orders which became rendered by the statutory authorities, upon, the apposite applications rather seeking the restorings of the lis to its original number, but after quashing the orders dismissing the lis in default. On the said writ petition, the hereinafter extracted order became

¶17

rendered:-

¶18

“1. Mr. Ravinder Singh, Advocate for Mr. Harjot Singh Bedi, puts in appearance on behalf of co-respondents No. 3 to 6, 8 to 13 and 15 to 21, under a validly executed Vakalatnama, instituted before this Court today, which is taken on record.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties are, ad idem, that the impugned dismissal order, as, made on the application for restoring the lis to its original number, given, the same becoming

¶20

DIWAKER GULATI 2025.01.16 13:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CWP-686-2025

¶22

2

¶23

dismissed in default, on 22.02.2022, thus may be quashed.

¶24

In consequence to the above made statement at the Bar by the learned counsels for the parties opposite, this Court sets aside the impugned order Annexures P-9 and 12. In consequence, as further consensually submitted before this Court by the learned appearing counsels, the Joint Development Commissioner concerned is directed to restore the lis to its original number, and is also directed to make a valid speaking decision on the restored lis, but within three months from today, and after hearing all affected persons concerned.

¶25

Any relief relating to staying of the operation of the orders challenged before the Joint Commissioner concerned, be asked for, only before the said Joint Development Commissioner concerned.

¶26

Disposed of in the above terms.”

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits, that though in paragraph 3 of the above extracted order, some protection against the present petitioners becoming evicted from the disputed land, thus, was granted. However, he submits that the said protection which became endowed upon the present petitioners was limited only upto the period when the said order was rendered. He further submits that since the relief qua granting further protection against the present petitioners becoming dispossessed from the disputed lands, was to be prayed for and was to be endowed upon the present petitioners, but only through such orders becoming recorded by the Joint Commissioner concerned.

¶28

Nonetheless, he submits that since the Joint Commissioner concerned, has not been designated as such, for deciding the remanded lis nor when therebys there can be any continuance of protection to the present petitioners rather against theirs becoming dispossessed from the suit lands.

¶29

DIWAKER GULATI 2025.01.16 13:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶30

CWP-686-2025 3

¶31

Therefore, a mandamus be issued upon to the respondents concerned to forthwith designate the Joint Commissioner, thus, for enabling the said designated Joint Commissioner to exercise jurisdiction over the territorial areas whereons the disputed lands, thus occur, so that therebys some relief can become endowed to the present petitioners.

¶32

In the said regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners refers to the order rendered by this Court on 10.05.2018, which becomes extracted hereinafter:-

¶33

“(1) Short/affidavit filed by Director, Rural Development & Panchayats, Punjab dated 09.05.2018 is taken on record.

¶34

(2) With the joint efforts made by learned Amicus Curiae and learned Advocate General, Punjab and pursuant to the suggestions given by Mr. M.L. Sarin vide letter dated 23.04.2018, it is resolved that Ms. Tanu Kashyap, IAS, Joint Commissioner, Department of Development and Panchayat be notified as Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. It is further resolved that Mr. Hardial Singh Chatha, ADC(D), Fatehgarh Sahib and Mr.Amardeep Singh Bains, Deputy Director be notified as Collectors under the 1961 Act and the pending cases relating to dispute between individuals and Gram Panchayat(s) may be proportionately distributed/allocated to these two Officers.

¶35

(3) Similarly, the pending appeals may be listed before Ms. Tanu Kashyap, IAS after notifying her as Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority under the Act.

¶36

(4) Mr. Sarin, learned Amicus Curiae has pointed out that the State Government itself is contemplating to identify the undisputed Government/public properties and take over the possession thereof.

¶37

(5) Let learned Advocate General have comprehensive instructions in this regard and if any such decision has been taken by the State Government, the Court may be apprised of it.

¶38

DIWAKER GULATI 2025.01.16 13:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶39

CWP-686-2025

¶40

4

¶41

(6) The State Government shall retain the above-named Officers on their respective assignments for a reasonable tenure and they shall not be transferred unless substitutes are duly approved by the Ld. amicus curiae or this Court.

¶42

(7) The above-named Officers shall, on assignment of the cases, will make an assessment as to whether there is a necessity to notify more Appellate Authority(ies)/Collector(s) for the purpose of expeditious disposal of the cases. As regards the panel of lawyers jointly approved by learned Amicus Curiae and learned Advocate General, Punjab, the same may be given effect forthwith.

¶43

(8) List on 07.08.2018.

¶44

(9) Photocopy of this order be placed on the record of other connected cases.”

¶45

Mr. Maninder Singh, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, emphasizes upon paragraph 4 of the above extracted order and submits that since therebys Ms. Tanu Kashyap, who was through the supra order appointed as the competent Appellate Authority, has now been appointed against some other post. Therefore, he argues that thereupon there arises a necessity to appoint some other Joint Commissioner to exercise the statutory duties of Appellate Authoritys so that therebys expeditious disposal of appellate cases, thus, takes place.

¶46

He continues to submits that since the issue for the appointment of a Joint Commissioner to exercise appellate jurisdiction in terms of the relevant statutory provisions embodied in the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 1961’), is under consideration, before a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Moreover, he also submits that an application has been filed thereins, for

¶47

DIWAKER GULATI 2025.01.16 13:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶48

CWP-686-2025 5

¶49

granting permission for appointment of a Joint Commissioner to make adjudications upon those disputes which arise within the territorial domain of the disputed lands. Therefore, at this stage, the said mandamus cannot be passed by this Court.

¶50

Be that as it may, since in terms of paragraph 7 as occurs in the order rendered by this Court on 10.05.2018, besides when the supra relief granted to the present petitioners through a verdict recorded on 10.01.2024 but is limited in duration of time. Resultantly, for ensuring pre-emptions qua drawing of any coercive action against the present petitioners as may arise from some delay occurring in the appointment of a Joint Commissioner, rather for hearing appeals, as become raised under the Act of 1961. Therefore, in the larger interest of justice, it is expected that the learned co-ordinate Bench of this Court, thus, may for alleviating pains arising from injustice becoming encumbered upon the litigants concerned, rather arising from non-appointment of the designated Appellate Authority, thereupons proceed to expeditiously appoint such an authority. Moreover, for further doing justice, especially till such time, the relevant appointment takes place, the parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the disputed lands.

¶51

8. Disposed of accordingly.

¶52

( SURESHWAR THAKUR) JUDGE

¶53

JANUARY	14, 2025	(VIKAS SURI)
d.gulati		JUDGE
	Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
	Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶54

DIWAKER GULATI 2025.01.16 13:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Balbir Singh and Others v. Joint Development Commissioner and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balbir Singh and Others v. Joint Development Commissioner and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sh Harmanjeet Singh Sandhu Vs State of Punjab and Others

Baba Peer Bahare Shah Aulia Chisti Alias Hazrat Ahmed Ali Shah Vs State of Haryana and Others

Davinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Jarnail Singh and Another Vs Joint Development Commissioner and Others

Makhan Chand Vs State of Punjab and Others

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