Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1211 (PNJ)

Didar Singh v. Joint Director Panchayat

2002-11-13

SWATANTER KUMAR

body2002
Judgment Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. By this judgment, I propose to dispose of the above titled writ petitions as common question is involved in all these petitions. The necessary facts for decision of these writ petitions are taken from C.W.P. No. 8448 of 1987. 2. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing order dated 26.9.1987, Annexure P-4 to the writ petition and order dated 6.12.1984 passed by the Appellate Authority, Annexure P-3 to the writ petition, vide which the petitioner has been ordered to be evicted from the land in dispute. 3. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that petitioner claims to be owner in possession of the land in dispute. He has claimed that the land is owned and possessed by him for generations and in the jamabandi for the year 1948-49, he was recorded as "Shamilat Deh Hasab Rasad Zar Khewat" in the column of ownership while in the column of cultivation, it was recorded as "Maqbuza Malkan". On the strength of the documents produced by him before the revenue authorities, he claimed to be the owner of the land and, according to the petitioner, the land even after consolidation and coming into force of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), does not vest in the Gram Panchayat and continues to be the property of the individual owner(s). 4. To these cases, the Gram Panchayat had pleaded that under Section 2(g) of the Act the Shamilat land vests in the Gram Panchayat. The Gram Panchayat is actually the owner in possession of the disputed land and, thus, it filed petition under Section 7 of the same Act for ejectment of the petitioner herein. 5. Parties filed various documents and led evidence before the authorities concerned. The petitioner herein had also filed a petition under Section 11 of the Act for determining the question of title which was ordered to be consolidated and heard along with the petitions filed by the Gram Panchayat under Section 7 of the Act. The petition filed by the Gram Panchayat was allowed by the Collector vide order dated 6th December, 1984 and the petitioner was ordered to be evicted from the land in question. The petition filed by the Gram Panchayat was allowed by the Collector vide order dated 6th December, 1984 and the petitioner was ordered to be evicted from the land in question. The obvious result was that the petition filed under Section 11 of the Act was dismissed. Aggrieved from the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Joint Director, Panchayat, Punjab (Exercising the powers of the Commissioner) Patiala being Appeal No. 171 of 1985. This appeal was also dismissed by the said authority on 29th June, 1987. This resulted in filing of the present petition. 6. It appears from the record that the parties had produced volumnious documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. However, the land was noticed to be Ban-jar Qadim in terms of the Jamabandi/Khasra Girdawari for the period 1948-49. According to the Appellate Authority "it is proved that before consolidation, the land in dispute was being used for common purposes and thereafter this land has been described in the column of ownership being Gram/Nagar Panchayat". This finding apparently appears to be in contradiction to the jamabandi placed on record as Annexure P-1 to the writ petition which is for the year 1948-49. It is contended that Annexure P-1 does not relate to the land in dispute while, on the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Jamabandi related to the period of pre-consolidation and the Khasra girdawari stood varied after consolidation, it was for the petitioner to show from the revenue records as the jamabandi for the subsequent years had already been placed on record. However, the Appellate Authority has not really dealt with the contentions raised before this Court which are based upon evidence produced before the authorities concerned. 7. In the present case, there are serious controversies in regard to the facts leading to a legal question arising for consideration, that authorities concerned ought to have recorded a clear finding based on the documentary evidence produced by the parties on record as to whether the land at all vested in the Gram Panchayat was recorded as owner in the relevant records. It is a settled principle of law that presumption of correctness is attached to the revenue records. It is a rebuttable presumption. The presumption can be rebutted by leading cogent and reliable evidence. It is a settled principle of law that presumption of correctness is attached to the revenue records. It is a rebuttable presumption. The presumption can be rebutted by leading cogent and reliable evidence. The impugned order lacks proper reasoning and recording of appropriate finding relatable to the evidence produced on record in the Jamabandies for the years 1955-56, 1978-79 and 1959-60, has nowhere been discussed in their correct perspective. In fact there is no discussion on this aspect of the matter. The Appellate Authority ought to have determined what is the effect of the revenue records which have been produced on record on the question of title. Question of title/ownership is a serious question and is a finding which the revenue authorities and the Appellate Authority under the Act must discernibly determined, as it is bound to seriously affect the rights of the parties to the lis before them. 8. Proper appreciation of evidence, particularly the evidence which has presumption of truth and presumption or correctness attached to it, should be dealt with in accordance with the basic cannon of law governing the revenue laws. 9. Be that as it may, I consider it appropriate to remand the matter to the Appellate Authority which now is stated to be Director, Rural Development and Panchayat, Punjab, Exercising the powers of the Commissioner under the Act. The mater shall be placed before him with complete records and parties would appear on 2nd December, 2002 at 11.00 A.M., on which date, the arguments would be heard and, if the said authority considers it necessary to adjourn the matter, the same may be adjourned for a short date, but final order shall be pronounced by the Appellate Authority in view of the observations above recorded, positively by 16th December, 2002. Copy of the order shall be furnished to the parties on the date of the pronouncement itself. In whichever case, the petitioner is required to furnish security for mense profit they shall be entitled to be heard only if they have furnished such security to the satisfaction of the authorities stated in the order of the High Court. 10. With the above observations, all these petitions stand disposed of.