Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 317 (PNJ)

Raj Pal v. Gram Panchayat of Village

2010-01-13

P.RAGHAVENDRA RAO

body2010
ORDER P. Raghavendra Rao, I.A.S.- This is a revision petition against order dated 15.10.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, whereby the appeal filed under section 13-AA(1) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against order dated 12.2.2008 passed by the Collector, Panchkula dated 12.02.2008 dismissing the suit of the petitioners under section 13-A of the Act. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the land in question was mutated in favour of the Gram Panchayat vide mutation No. 1835 dated 31.01.1993 on the basis of a letter dated 9.1.1990. Though the said mutation was declared contested but the claim of the proprietors was rejected. Against the decision of the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Panchkula the petitioners had filed an appeal before the Collector, Ambala which was dismissed vide order dated 10.1.1995. Thereafter, in compliance of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court in Jai Singh’s case a mutation No. 2020 was entered in favour of Shamilat Patti Dewan and Ramjas Hasab Rasad Jar Khewat, but ultimately the Commissioner Ambala Division vide order dated 22.8.2007 held that the proceedings of sanctioning mutation No. 1835 have attained finality and hence this mutation No. 2020 cannot be sanctioned in favour of the Shamilat Patti. It was further argued that in order to get the question of title decided the petitioners filed the present suit in the court of learned Collector on 3.4.2007. As per jamabadies for the year 1945-46 to 1986-87, the land in question is recorded as Shamilat Patti Dewan and Ramjas Hasab Rasad Jar Khewat and in the column of cultivation it is recorded as Makbuja Malkan. As per Sharat Waj UI Arj, a Dangri river passes through this village and alluvion and dilluvian is caused in the village. During consolidation the land in question was earmarked for Gair Mukmkin Nadi. The land of river is of the common purpose rather the land which is subject to river action has been excluded from the definition of shamilat deh and cited the case law reported 1996 PLJ 370 and 1978 PLJ 138 in support his contention. During consolidation the land in question was earmarked for Gair Mukmkin Nadi. The land of river is of the common purpose rather the land which is subject to river action has been excluded from the definition of shamilat deh and cited the case law reported 1996 PLJ 370 and 1978 PLJ 138 in support his contention. Referring to the Jai Singh’s case law it was argued that vide this judgment it has categorically been held that if the land is not shown to be reserved for any of the common purposes of the village shall not vest in the Gram Panchayat and in the instant case, a bare perusal of the consolidation scheme makes it amply clear that the land in question is not reserved for any common purpose of the village. It was further argued that the land in question is bachat land as per the revenue record of rights and it was not earmarked, reserved, used or utilized for any common purpose of the village. The land in question has been in the ownership and possession of the petitioners since prior to the 26th January, 1950. The land in question does not fall within the ambit of shamilat deh and therefore, the orders passed by the courts below are illegal, unjust, unfair, without jurisdiction and against the mandatory provisions of law. Concluding his arguments, he prayed for admission of the revision petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length and gone through the referred case law. It is settled law that relevant date for determination of the character of the land with reference to Section 2(g) is the 9th of January, 1954. Revenue entries in jamabandi prior to 9.1.1954 are a relevant fact for the purpose of Section 2(g) of the Act read with the provisions of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation)Act, 1953. In terms of section 2(g)(3) of the 1961 Act, shamilat deh includes land which is described in the revenue record as shamilat patti and used according to revenue record for the benefit of the village community or a part thereof. In the present case the land in question is described as Shamilat Patti Dewan and Ramjas Hasab Rasad Jar Khewat in the Jamabandis for the years 1945-46 onwards i.e., prior to the commencement of the shamilat law and has been used for the common purposes of the village. In the present case the land in question is described as Shamilat Patti Dewan and Ramjas Hasab Rasad Jar Khewat in the Jamabandis for the years 1945-46 onwards i.e., prior to the commencement of the shamilat law and has been used for the common purposes of the village. Even during the consolidation proceedings the land in question was reserved as such. During the consolidation proceedings no pro-rata cut was imposed on the holdings of the proprietors to reserve the land in question for the purpose of Gair Mumkin Nadi. Nor the land in question has been declared or described as shamilat patti because of the alluvian and dilluvian. The Hon’ble High Court in the case of Nand Lal v. Gram Sabha Janti Kalan- 1969 PLJ 202, has held that there is no such statutory provision either in the 1954 Act or in the 1961 Act that the land which merely comes under river water on account of flood during some in a year cannot be said to be subject to river action within the meaning of first exception 2 of clause (g) of section 2 of the Act. 4. The judgment in Jai Singh’s case was primarily in relation to considering the vires of addition of clause (6) to section 2(g) of the 1981 Act. Clause (6) relates to reservation of land for common purposes of village under emotion is of the East Punjab Land Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. The bachat land is the unutilized land reserved during the consolidation for common purposes in accordance with the provisions of section 14 of the 1948 Act. As such only the Jumla Mustarka Malkan land which is not used for common purposes is owned by the proprietary body. In the present case neither the land in question is recorded as Jumlal Mustarka Malkan land nor it was reserved after applying pro-rata cut on the holdings of proprietors in the terms of the consolidation scheme framed in accordance with the provisions of section 14 of the 1948 Act. As such the plea taken by the petitioners that judgment in Jai Singh’s case is applicable to the facts of present case, is devoid of any merits as Jai Singh’s case covers the land described as Jumla Mustarka Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Arazi Hasab Rasad and not the land recorded as Shamilat Patti. As such the plea taken by the petitioners that judgment in Jai Singh’s case is applicable to the facts of present case, is devoid of any merits as Jai Singh’s case covers the land described as Jumla Mustarka Malkan Wa Digar Haqdaran Arazi Hasab Rasad and not the land recorded as Shamilat Patti. Both the authorities below have considered these facts in detail while passing the impugned orders. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders to warrant interference. Hence the revision petition is dismissed in limine. Be communicated. Petition dismissed. ----------------