Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 605 (PNJ)

Mahender Singh v. Sardar Singh

2008-02-29

URVASHI GULATI

body2008
ORDER 1. Brief facts giving rise to the present revision are that the Collector Mahendergarh vide his order dated 2.9.2004 allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and ordered that the petitioner be impleaded as a respondent. The appeal filed by the respondent No.1 against the order dated 2.9.2004 was allowed by the Ld. Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, vide order dated 13.1.2006 on the ground that only the respondent No.1 is recorded in cultivating possession in the jamabandis for the years from 1963 to 1998-99. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been filed under section 13B (2) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed at the back of the petitioner despite the fact the petitioner was arrayed as one of the respondents in the appeal before Learned Commissioner. No opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. He further argued that Shri Bishambar Dayal was in cultivating possession of the suit land and Shri Dayal’s death the mutation was sanctioned in the name of Sardar Singh (respondent No.1) and Udmi Ram (father of the present petitioner). As such, the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 are in possession in equal share of the disputed land. He continued to argue that the learned Commissioner has ignored the material fact that the disputed land was cultivated jointly by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner and the respondent No.1. Concluding his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for acceptance of the petition. 3. In reply, the counsel for the respondent No.1 argued that in the suit filed by the respondent No.1 before the Collector, Mahendergarh, he had claimed the land to the extent of his own share and the petitioner has no right, title or interest in the same. He further argued that the petitioner never challenged the mutation sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat and therefore he has no locus standi to file an application for impleading him as a respondent in the present suit. Concluding his arguments, he prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. 4. He further argued that the petitioner never challenged the mutation sanctioned in favour of the Gram Panchayat and therefore he has no locus standi to file an application for impleading him as a respondent in the present suit. Concluding his arguments, he prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. 4. Legal Officer for the Gram Panchayat, respondent No. 2 argued that the respondent No.1 is not recorded in possession of the suit land and hence he has no right to be impleaded as a necessary party in the present suit. He further argued that as per provisions of Section 13-A of the Act, Ld. Collector has to adjudicate whether the land in question is shamilat deh or not. No private individual can be declared as owner of the land by the Collector. As such no right of the petitioner is being prejudiced if he is not allowed to be arrayed as a party the suit. Concluding his arguments, he prayed for dismissal of petition. 5. I have heard the Ld. Counsels and perused the record available on the file. Perusal of jamabadis for the years 1963-64 to 1998-99 available on record reveals that the petitioner is not recorded in possession of the land in question and as such there is no prima facie proof in favour of the petitioner for claiming title. Moreover the Collector has to adjudicate whether the suit land vests or does not vest in the panchayat and therefore the petitioner is not being prejudiced in any manner. In view of the above, finding no infirmity in the order dated 13.1.2006 passed by Commissioner, Gurgaon Division Gurgaon, the present revision petition is dismissed. To be communicated. --------------------