Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 598 (PNJ)

Tara Singh v. Gram Panchayat, Bohllian

2000-05-30

SHYAMA MANN

body2000
ORDER Shyama Mann, FC - This six revision petitions under Section 54 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 are directed against separate orders of even dated i.e. 22.12.1999 passed by Mrs. Agya Rajinder Singh, the then Custodian General, Punjab while dismissing the review petitions under Section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. As all these revision petitions substantively deal with common question of law and facts they can, more appropriately, be disposed of by a common single order a copy of which shall be placed on each of the files. The facts of each of the revision petitions may be briefly referred to for appreciation of the controversy :- (i) In M.R. No. 22 of 2000 the petitioner claimed to be in continuous possession of land measuring 138K-14M situated in the Revenue Estate of village Bohllian, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar for the last 40 years except for Kashmir Singh who claimed to be in possession of some land for the last 8-10 years. They contended that the entire village was owned by Muslims who migrated to Pakistan at the time of partition of country and the land in question which was owned by the Muslims stood vested in the Custodian. The land continued to be described as evacuee till 1956 and was wrongly mutated in favour of the Gram Panchayat. They further contended that a Civil Suit for permanent injunction filed by Kashmir Singh, petition was decreed vide order dated 29.8.1997 of the Court of Additional District Judge, Ajnala. The petitioners asserted that they were entitled to get the land transferred on the basis of long continuous possession of land under the Govt. policy at reserve price. (ii) In M.R. No. 23 of 2000 the petitioners claimed to be in continuous cultivating possession of 101K-10M of land situated in village Chahia Taraf Aranian, Tehsil Ajnala District Amritsar, for the last 40 years. They also pleaded that the land was owned by Muslims and on their migration to Pakistan at the time of Partition of the country the land stood vested in Custodian. The land continued to be recorded as evacuee property till 1961-62 when it was wrongly mutated in favour of Gram Panchayat. The petitioners claimed that they were entitled to get the land transferred at reserve price on the basis of their long continuous possession. The land continued to be recorded as evacuee property till 1961-62 when it was wrongly mutated in favour of Gram Panchayat. The petitioners claimed that they were entitled to get the land transferred at reserve price on the basis of their long continuous possession. (iii) In M.R. No. 24 of 2000 the petitioners claimed to be in possession of land measuring 134K-5M situated in village Bohllian Tehsil Ajnala District Amritsar, for the last 25 years after the migration of the Muslims who were owners of the said land and it stood vested in Custodian after partition. According to them the land continued to be recorded as evacuee property in the Revenue record till 1956 when it was wrongly and illegally mutated in favour of Gram Panchayat. (iv) In M.R. No. 25 of 2000 the petitioners claimed to be in possession of land measuring 207K-6M situated in village Kotli Koru Tana Tehsil Ajnala District Amritsar for the last 20 years. They asserted that the entire village was owned by Muslims who migrated to Pakistan at the time of partition of the country and the land in question which was owned by Muslims came to be vested in the Custodian after partition in the copies of Jamabandi for the year 1943-44 and 1951-52 it was entered as Shamlat Hasab Rasad Khewat. The petitioners alleged that the land continued to be recorded in the revenue record as evacuee property till 1961-62 when it was wrongly and illegally mutated in favour of Gram Panchayat. According to them the land bearing entry Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat belongs to proprietors of the village and does not vest in Gram Panchayat. The petitioners asserted that they were in continuous possession of land and were entitled to get the land at reserve price under the Govt. Policy. (v) In M.R. No. 26 of 2000 the petitioners claimed to be in possession of land measuring 205K-7M of land situated in village Kotli Koru Tana for the last 20 years. They contended that the entire village was owned by Muslims who migrated to Pakistan at the time of the partition of country and the land stood vested in the Custodian. The land continued to be recorded in the revenue record as evacuee property till 1961-62 when it was wrongly mutated in favour of Gram Panchayat. They contended that the entire village was owned by Muslims who migrated to Pakistan at the time of the partition of country and the land stood vested in the Custodian. The land continued to be recorded in the revenue record as evacuee property till 1961-62 when it was wrongly mutated in favour of Gram Panchayat. The petitioners contended that they were entitled to get the land transferred on the basis of long continuous possession under the Govt. policy at reserve price. (vi) In M.R. No. 27 of 2000 the petitioners claimed to be in possession of land measuring 78K-4M of land situated in village Chahia Taraf Aranian Tehsil Ajnala District Amritsar, for the last 40 years. They contended that the entire village was owned by Muslims who migrated to Pakistan at the time of the partition of country and the land stood vested in the Custodian. The land continued to be recorded in the revenue record as evacuee property till 1961- 62 when it was wrongly and illegally mutated in favour of Gram Panchayat. The petitioners contended that they were entitled to get the land transferred on the basis of long continuous possession under the Govt. policy at reserve price. 3. Originally the petitions were filed in the Court of Mrs. Agya Rajinder Singh, Assistant Custodian General with the powers of Custodian General, Punjab, Chandigarh under Section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 for declaring the land mentioned in the petitions as Evacuee Property in the ownership of Central Govt. on the ground that the same stood wrongly mutated in the names of different Gram Panchayats. 2. On a notice being given to the Gram Panchayat by the Court of Assistant Custodian General, they contested the petitions and they contended that the revision petitions were not maintainable being hopelessly time-barred and also not being against any orders of the lower Courts. If was further asserted that the land in dispute vested in the Gram Panchayat long back and the same was being given on chakota by the Gram Panchayat and the money received was being utilised for the welfare of the village community. Petitioners being the lessees were supposed to vacate the land on the expiry of the terms of lease. If was further asserted that the land in dispute vested in the Gram Panchayat long back and the same was being given on chakota by the Gram Panchayat and the money received was being utilised for the welfare of the village community. Petitioners being the lessees were supposed to vacate the land on the expiry of the terms of lease. It was further contended that the land vested in the Gram Panchayat being Shamlat Deh and mutation could be challenged only before the competent authority under the Land Revenue Act; and the vesting could be challenged only under the provisions of Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. 3. The Ld. Custodian General dismissed the revision petitions on the ground that a revision under Section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property could be only against an order passed by the Custodian in some proceedings calling for interference by the Custodian General under Section 27. It was further observed that under Section 7-A of the Act no declaration of a property as evacuee property could be made after 7.5.1954 except under the conditions mentioned in the proviso, which did not exist in these cases. It was further held that the question regarding land being Shamlat Deh vesting or not vesting in the Gram Panchayat falls for adjudication by the authorities under the Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and the matter fell beyond the jurisdiction of the Custodian General. On the these grounds the revision petitions were dismissed vide impugned order. The present petitions are under Section 54 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. 4. I have carefully examined the records and have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. I find myself in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted by the Learned Asstt. Custodian General, while dismissing the revision petition under Section 27 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950, which could not be successfully assailed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. 5. Besides this, in my opinion, the controversy arising in the present petitions is fully covered by the ruling of the Apex Court in Gram Panchayat of village Jamalpur Awana v. Malwinder Singh and others, 1985-PLJ-463 on all fours. It was held that the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act prevails in the State of Punjab in so far as Shamlat Deh land is concerned over Administration of Evacuee Property Act. It was held that the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act prevails in the State of Punjab in so far as Shamlat Deh land is concerned over Administration of Evacuee Property Act. In this regard the following clinching observations made by the Honble Supreme Court at Page 472 deserve to be reproduced : "The effect of the operation of the Provincial and Central Acts relating to Evacuee Property was that Evacuee Property became vested in the Custodian but it must be noted that what became vested in the Custodian was that property left behind by the evacuee, no more and no less. If the evacuee had left behind him Khewat land it became vested in the Custodian. If the evacuee had left behind him the right to a share in Shamlat-deh lands, that too became vested in the Custodian. The vesting, however, did not divest Shamlat deh lands of their character as Shamlat deh lands and convert them into Khewat land. Shamlat-deh lands could only continue and did continue to be Shamlat-deh even after they became vested in the Custodian and the Custodian could only deal with them as Shamlat deh lands in the same manner in which the Muslim proprietors could have dealt with them had they not migrated to Pakistan. That was the position after the Parliament enacted the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950. At that stage came the Punjab Village Common Lands Regulation Act of 1953 which has been held by this Court to be legislation aimed at agrarian reform. It has nothing to do and it did not purport to have anything to do with the administration of evacuee property. All Shamlat-deh lands whether they belonged to the proprietary body of villagers consisting only of non-evacuees or whether they belonged to the proprietary body of villagers the interests of some of whom had become vested in the Custodian under the various Evacuees Property Laws, were dealt with by the Punjab Act without distinction. All Shamlat-deh lands, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law of the time being in force, became vested in the village Panchayat. As we said earlier the Punjab Act was a law providing for agrarian reform and it neither purported to be nor was it a law regulating the administration of evacuee property." The learned counsel for the petitioners had no answer to meet this legal position. 6. As we said earlier the Punjab Act was a law providing for agrarian reform and it neither purported to be nor was it a law regulating the administration of evacuee property." The learned counsel for the petitioners had no answer to meet this legal position. 6. In view of my above discussion I am of the opinion that there is no scope for interference in the impugned orders and the revision petitions are dismissed. Announced. Revisions dismissed.