Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 318 (PNJ)

Baru Ram v. Gram Panchayat Village Khetpurali

2010-01-13

P.RAGHAVENDRA RAO

body2010
ORDER P.Raghavendra Rao, I.A.S.- This is a revision petition against order dated 26.11.208 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 31.3.2008 passed by the Collector, Panchkula was, dismissed affirming the order of Collector, Panchkula dated 31.3.2008 dismissing the suit of the petitioners under section 13-A of the Act. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners and others being proprietors of the village are owners in possession of the suit land since the inception of the village. The land in question is bachat land of the village, affected by river action. According to revenue record i.e., jamabandi for the years 1946-47, 1952-53, 1957-58 and 1997-98, the suit land has been recorded in the column of ownership as shamilat patti khetpurali hasab rasad jar khewat and in the column of cultivation and possession thereof as Maqbooja Malkan and also depicted therein the names of petitioners, their father and forefathers being share holders and Gair Marusian thereof. In the civil writ petition No. 8203 of 2004 titled as Dharam Chand and others v. State of Haryana and others, the Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 7.8.2006 were directed to file a petition under section 13-A of the Act for deciding the question of title because the respondent Gram Panchayat has disputed the ownership of the petitioner over the suit land. The learned Collector, without taking into consideration the material evidence on the record, dismissed the suit of the petitioner in a most casual and illegal manner vide order dated 31.3.2008. The learned Commissioner too dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide his order dated 26.11.2008 without application of judicious mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. The land in question is not shamilat as defined under section 2(g) rather the land in dispute falls within the exemption clause (i) of section 2 (g)(5) of the Act. The learned Commissioner too dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide his order dated 26.11.2008 without application of judicious mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. The land in question is not shamilat as defined under section 2(g) rather the land in dispute falls within the exemption clause (i) of section 2 (g)(5) of the Act. 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, it 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 was not reserved 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. The judgment in Jai Singh’s case was primarily in relation to considering the vires of addition of clauses (6) to section 2(g) of the 1961 Act. Clause (6) relates to reservation of land for common purposes of village under section 18 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 Jumla Mustarka Malkan land nor it was reserved after applying pro-rata cut on the holdings of proprietors in terms of the consolidation scheme framed in accordance with the provisions of section 14 of the 1948 Act. In the present case neither the land in question is recorded as Jumla Mustarka Malkan land nor it was reserved after applying pro-rata cut on the holdings of proprietors in 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 merit 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. It is settled law that the 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 the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1953. In terms 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 khetpurali Hasab Rasad Jar Khewat in the Jamabandis for the years 1946-47 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 of 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 action on account of floods during a year cannot be said to be subject to river action within the meaning of first exception 2 of clauses (g) of section 2 of the Act. The land in question has never remained in individual cultivating possession of the proprietor of the village in accordance with their share in the shamilat deh to be excluded from the ambit of shamilat deh. 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. ------------